Unpopular DB opinions

[Robo4900]

Almost every fight in Dragon Ball feels too long, and I spend most of it just wanting it to get done so we can get more character and story stuff.

[PFM18]

Almost every fight in Dragon Ball feels too long, and I spend most of it just wanting it to get done so we can get more character and story stuff.

Is the shortness of the fights something you appreciate about GT then?

[Robo4900]

Is the shortness of the fights something you appreciate about GT then?

I suppose to a certain extent, yes. Though, really, GT doesn't have that many fights until the Super #17 arc, and in that arc, they're mostly smaller fights that last maybe a scene or two. Before that, the only real fights are Redjic, Baby, and Rildo. So, for most of GT, it's not so much the fight length, but the fact there really aren't any fights to speak of at all.

But, getting back to the Super #17 and owards stuff, most of the fights I can think of in GT are in the Evil Dragons arc, which -- in general -- does pace its fights rather well in my view; most of the fights with the dragons are only one or two episodes, and in that time, the character of the dragon, the situation they're in, etc. is explored. But this isn't unique to this arc, really; the tournament arcs in the original series were basically built around that formula...
You get to see what the baddy being fought can do, you get an idea of what their quirk means in a fight, you see Goku or whoever it is figure out how to beat them, and during this all is some fun characterisation and often in these sorts of arcs, some humour, and it's all done within 1 or 2 episodes, because that's all you need to do all this.
So... I guess you could say the Evil Dragons arc was one final twist on the tournament arc formula, in a way.

I suppose this leads to a somewhat paradoxical situation with my disinterest(Though perhaps that's too strong a word) in fights, contrasting with my love of the tournament arcs, which are entirely centred around fights.

But anyway, yes, I think you've struck into a nugget of truth there that I didn't even realise. Well done, and thank you -- this is a rather interesting line of thinking I haven't given the due amount of thought before.

[ABED]

GT has some of the most boring fights in all of DB. Sure, DB has plenty of dragged out battles, but even the short ones in GT feel as slow as molasses.

[majinwarman]

Fair point. I was just being pedantic. He certainly does change not just physcially, though whether you find his different personalities appealing is opinion.

I guess so but I still don't think it was interesting to read/watch at all.

[jeffbr92]

It can get boring, but it's nice to see the tables turn on the villain. It's also boring if it's one sided, regardless of which side it is.

I disagree on that. It's only boring when the good guy is stomping the main villain with ease, the other way around is actually pretty interesting to see: I enjoyed a lot seeing how Freeza gave fake hopes to everyone who fought him that he could be defeated before the Super Saiyan.

[ABED]

It can get boring, but it's nice to see the tables turn on the villain. It's also boring if it's one sided, regardless of which side it is.

I disagree on that. It's only boring when the good guy is stomping the main villain with ease, the other way around is actually pretty interesting to see: I enjoyed a lot seeing how Freeza gave fake hopes to everyone who fought him that he could be defeated before the Super Saiyan.

The Freeza fight does lose its luster several times, but at least it gives the other team enough offense that it doesn't get super boring, but it does come close. Broly on the other hand is just a one sided fight and it gets really boring, really quick. One sided fights get boring, at a certain point, there has to be a reversal of fortune or it becomes monotonous.

Time is a very important element.

[Ki Breaker]

The Freeza fight does lose its luster several times, but at least it gives the other team enough offense that it doesn't get super boring, but it does come close. Broly on the other hand is just a one sided fight and it gets really boring, really quick. One sided fights get boring, at a certain point, there has to be a reversal of fortune or it becomes monotonous.

Time is a very important element.

Have to agree to this sentiment, one sided action scenes are only enjoyable under two conditions if we narrow it down..
One If the beat down is finished quickly with or without style, although style certainly helps..
Second will be when you are a die hard fan of the character dishing out said beat down.. those scenes can go on for an hour and a half and you will still feel it's a-okay..

[Robo4900]

Freeza is by far the least-interesting main villain of the Dragon Ball franchise.

[Spider-Man]

Freeza is by far the least-interesting main villain of the Dragon Ball franchise.

Why do you think Freeza is least-interesting? Care to elaborate.

[PsionicWarrior]

^^Freeza doesn't need to be interesting to be awesome, he's your generic sadistic tyrant but he's ******* good at it lol

[Kunzait_83]

Freeza is by far the least-interesting main villain of the Dragon Ball franchise.

I'm certainly less than fond of the character's over-exposure in the recent Super/revival material and have discussed that in-depth lately, but this is WAY too much of a swing in the other opposite extreme. Freeza's easily one of the best characterized main villains in the whole series without question. Even if he isn't your favorite ever (which in itself is more than fair: different strokes for different folks and all), putting him as the single least interesting ("by far" even) is absurdly over-the-top hyperbolic. Less interesting than someone like Commander Red? Really?

Now I'm curious as to whom you WOULD pick for the top spot of "most interesting". Even if you're someone who's REALLY into DB for its comedic bits, I still can't imagine it'd be Pilaf or any of the Red Ribbon goons (and I'm as fond of Murasaki and Blue as the next person, but still...). And judging by some of your other posts in other threads, I'm finding it doubtful it'd be Cell or Boo (though who knows, I could be wrong). Piccolo Daimao? Tao Pai Pai? Vegeta? Am genuinely curious.

[Robo4900]

Why do you think Freeza is least-interesting? Care to elaborate.

Sure.
Though, prepare yourself; when someone tells me to elaborate, I'm going to run wild...
So, strap yourself in, here we go...

Pilaf is an incompetent, maniacal madman with designs on ruling the world, despite the fact he's no-where near competent to even gather a handful of Dragon Balls right, let alone rule anything. In addition to being a hilarious and entertaining comedy villain, he's also a rather tragic figure.

Commander Red is a man who's lied and cheated his way up to becoming one of the most powerful men in the world, with an army at his disposal, and probably the capabilities to take over the world even if he never attained his goal of gathering the Dragon Balls, and yet it's all a lie to simply make him taller, which stemmed from a minor misunderstanding that he's maintained to keep the Red Ribbon Army going for a long while. He's a sociopathic madman willing to ruin the entire planet and fool an entire army to make himself taller. This man is possibly the most evil villain in all of Dragon Ball, because he just wants one small vanity thing taken care of, and will gladly tear apart villages, commit mass murder, and dupe his entire force to do so. And pretty much all of this is a last-minute revelation that twists around the world-conquering madman stereotype you'd assume he fit into.
The funny thing is, if Red had Pilaf's drive for world conquest, he likely would have achieved his goal.

Tenshinhan is an honourable warrior who has a crisis of faith in the climax of the arc after he realises his ways have been distorted by a deceitful, terrible man, leading to him joining the Dragon Team, and ultimately be instrumental in the battles to come.

Piccolo Daimao broke all of the rules established by the world of Dragon Ball up to that point; main characters don't die, the villain never gets their wish on the balls, the world is always saved -- usually at the last minute -- and the only real consequences carried over tend to be character progression-related, and as established in Red Ribbon, any supposed deaths that could be carried over can be wished away.
So, Piccolo kills Kuririn, and his presence results in the further deaths of Roshi, Tenshinhan, and Chiaotsu, he gets his wish on the balls, he kills the dragon, meaning the balls can't be used against him, or to undo the deaths we've seen, he takes over the world, he completely and totally thrashes Goku, and even when Goku finally manages to defeat this demon after taking the ultra-divine plot convenience water, he lives on in the form of Piccolo Jr., a foe Goku will have to train for years if he's to have any hope of defeating, since he'll now be spending every waking moment working to surpass Goku so as to not make it a repeat of last time; sure, God helps get the Dragon Balls back so people can be wished back, but if Goku doesn't stop Piccolo Jr., it will have all been for nothing, and given how successful Piccolo's previous incarnation had been, anything could happen.
Piccolo is a genius villain, and while the Demon King incarnation isn't a particularly complex character, the way he breaks the narrative rules that had been established so far in Dragon Ball makes him a jarringly powerful, evil, and capable villain, making him incredibly interesting to watch.
I have a further point to make, but it involves Infinity War spoilers, so if you care about that and haven't seen it yet, don't open this:
[spoiler]Piccolo Daimao is Dragon Ball's Thanos.
According to everything the MCU movies had established up to that point, the heroes should have defeated Thanos at every turn. They underwent their character development that usually brings them to the point in their hero's journey, or their Dan Harmon story circle, and basically their character arc in the film in general that allows them to overcome the big threat of the movie, and yet, Thanos still wins at every turn. Iron Man, in his first solo film, learns humility, and to open himself up a bit more, which brings him to a place where he's able to defeat Iron Monger. In Infinity War, Peter Quill learns to make hard choices for the first time in his royally screwed-up life by shooting the gun at Gamora, thus sacrificing the woman he loves for the sake of the entire universe, something she asked him to do, and a choice that he never could have made before that moment. In that brief moment, Peter Quill had completed his character arc over all the movies he'd been in, and thus by all accounts, he'd done what was necessary to win the day, and become a better person despite what he's sacrificed, but Thanos completely robbed him of any of what he just did mattering when he prevented the gun from firing anything harmful. Peter Quill had to go through all the trauma the moment required, and still lost. Thanos broke the rules of the MCU universe throughout this film, which is why he feels like a universe-bending demigod to the viewers, instead of just being "A really strong guy the guys in the film are afraid of because of magic rocks."

Piccolo Daimao is like this. He's not anywhere near as deep or complex a character as Thanos is, and comparing these two narratives, and their respective villains, will almost certainly not turn out so well for Dragon Ball and Piccolo, but, this is why Piccolo works. It's not because we love Kuririn, Roshi, and Tenshinhan, it's not because we care about the dragon, it's not because we care about the world being taken over, it's because all of this stuff broke previous convention, making it all a total shock, and while the factors I mentioned there do matter in the end, the main reason Piccolo works is because, like Thanos, he -- on a meta sense -- feels like he's a bigger threat than the Dragon Ball crew have ever faced before, and he feels like the first guy they've ever faced who could legitimately win... And, in both cases, he does. (At least, for a little while)[/spoiler]

I don't think anyone needs convincing of Vegeta's complexity, so I'll do a brief aside about Raditz instead; he's not a particularly deep or complex character, he pretty much exists to be a plot point, and in a way, kind of a repeat of what we saw in the Piccolo arc, turning that subversion intrinsic to that arc's DNA into some of the usual tropes we're familiar with in the action era(From the Piccolo arc to the Cell arc), so while he's probably the weakest villain so far, he's still interesting, because he himself is essentially the reveal of one of the last couple of rules the Piccolo arc forgot to break; Goku isn't who we thought he was, and how he's dead.
And through Raditz, we see what Goku was born to be; not the gentle, kind soul with a love of fighting, but a brutal, merciless space pirate who lives on deceit, murder, and destruction. This is who Goku would have been if he had carried out his mission. And that is pretty damn interesting. To a lesser extent, this could also apply to Vegeta and Nappa, but once Raditz was out of the way, we'd already seen this, so it wasn't exactly new or subversive; those two had their own set of cool things about them to enjoy.

Dr. Gero is the man who already killed Goku and co. in one version of reality, and while much of his true nature isn't explored fully in the main canon, he has got some rather fascinating motivations for his actions. He wants revenge against Goku for toppling the Red Ribbon army, which his son had signed up to and died from a stray bullet during his tenure in; sure, Goku didn't kill Gero's son, but he toppled the army, making Gero's son's death an utterly pointless event.
Even putting this aside, -- which is totally fair, none of this is evident within the show or manga to any extent, unfortunately -- Gero is pretty unique in that he seems all high and mighty, but basically is completely screwed out of his plan. He's a desperate old man whose grand master scheme has failed, and yet even with the last ~10 years of his life effectively going down the drain, and the collapse of everything secondary to his primary scheme imminent, he's so devoted to his master plan, he unleashes #17 and #18, the final act of desperation that ultimately gets him killed.
So, this is a man who is completely and utterly dedicated to killing Son Goku. We don't know why, and since his part in the story ends up being rather short, we don't really need to know why(Though, perhaps #16 could have hinted at it a little...), we're left to guess at it as we see the unfinished #16 come online, and be a clearly half-finished mess, yet with the desire to kill Goku burned in at a fundamental level. So, this is a man who doesn't want to take over the world, he doesn't want to gather the Dragon Balls, all he's interested in is Goku dead. Which is new for Dragon Ball.
And, if you think about it, Cell is the ultimate evidence of Gero's insanity and determination; Cell exists to kill Goku, and then beyond that, to destroy the entirety of creation around him. So, Gero wants Goku killed, then all other life destroyed too. If we look at it without the outside knowledge we have of his motivations, this tells us that whatever reason he's doing this, it's lead him to hate basically everything to a degree of determination similar to his desire to kill Goku. If we look at this with our outside knowledge, this tracks pretty well; with Goku dead, and his son's death avenged, he's still stuck in a world that's been unfair to him, and left him without his son, so once Goku's dead, his only other goal is to destroy everything else.

That brings us to the cyborgs themselves, as well as Cell; they're basically fun-loving sociopaths who basically just want to indulge themselves. Unfortunately, they were created to be killer cyborgs(Well... Bio-being in Cell's case, I guess?... Kind of sucks we don't have a non-clunky English term for artificial human), so their way of indulging involves destruction, killing Goku, or in Cell's case, absorbing the Cyborgs, and destroying everything.
These beings can't be reasoned with, they just want to enjoy themselves in the only way they know how. In the end, the cyborgs unite with the protagonists against their common enemy of Cell, and #17 and #18's experiences here change them in big ways, leading to them leading much more peaceful lives like #16, but for the brief time that the cyborgs serve as the villains, they're basically an unstoppable force who want to kill Goku, and do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

Boo is rather similar to the cyborgs and Cell in his motivation of indulgence, but rather than coming from malice for Goku, brainwashing to make him want to kill, or being genetically designed to kill three people then destroy everything, Boo is simply a child who doesn't know any better, because Babidi always had him destroy things in exchange for desserts. Ultimately, Boo is just a child who's been granted power beyond that of any mortal being, who's then been used as a weapon of mass destruction on a cosmic scale. So, when Mr. Satan shows him a better way, he betters himself.
And then, in Super Boo, we see another facet of Boo's personality; this is Boo, but with a manifestation of all his rage, frustration, and dispair pushed to the forefront of his being, making him an impatient, petulant, angry child, seeking more indulgences, only now instead of his harmful behaviour coming from not being taught a proper sense of right and wrong, his harmful behaviour comes from this darker side to him simply not caring about the idea of right or wrong.
Finally, we get Boo's pure form, everything that made Boo into Super Boo concentrated into one being; a ball of pure rage, that was created by Babidi for the sole purpose of destroying all of creation.
Granted, the pure form of Boo isn't anything particularly interesting or new on his own, but Boo as a whole is one character who we expore various facets of, and effectively his story is one in which his personal demons come out and do tremendous damage to not only his own personal life, but to all those around him, however with the help of others, he's able to make peace with his demons, and become a more rounded person(In this case, literally).
I mean, basically, Boo's story is a kid who's become a bully due to the way his dad has always told him to be, who's then put in his place by some nice people who show him a better way, and thus, he betters himself.

Baby was wronged by the Saiyans, and wants nothing more than to kill the remaining ones, and revive his species. He uses the people of earth to help him carry out this plan, but ultimately doesn't seek to harm them at all; he even lets the half-Saiyans like Gohan continue to live in peace under his reign. I don't think I need to go into why his motivations are interesting, many others have talked about how interesting it is to have a villain like Baby who has legitimate beef with the main cast; he's basically a man who's been radicalised into racism because the violent tendencies of a particular culture ruined his culture, and now he's seeking his revenge. Naturally, he isn't able to defeat Goku initially, and pretty much goes insane and begins compromising on every other aspect of his plan just to finish Goku off, but ultimately that doesn't work out.

For the Super #17 arc, Dr. Myuu becomes the true big bad, so we'll talk about him for a bit now.
So, Dr. Myuu's existence has been one long, sad failure. Time for a little revenge. Thing is, he wasn't really designed to exist in a state like this. Baby created him to gather energy for to use in his conquest of the Saiyans, so once Baby destroyed him and attempted to enact his plan, Dr. Myuu's role in events was over... And then Baby's plan failed, and Myuu was left a pawn in a master plan that never got off the ground. So, he does what he knows; finsh the work of Baby, scheme, deceive, and cause havoc with machine mutants.

The Evil Dragons are a construct of the Dragon Balls designed to mitigate against overuse, and ultimately are a natural balancing force in the universe; mess with the universe too much with the Dragon Balls, and the universe will mess with you with the Dragon Balls. I've gone into this in-depth before, so I'll just quote myself. It was in a different context, focusing more on justifying Yi Xing Long as a character and as a villain, but this should get my point across fairly well still:

The final dragon, Yi Xing Long/Ii Shinron/Syn Shenron, appears when Goku and Si Xing Long have just concluded the ordeal with San Xing Long. Si Xing Long gives Goku something to make his eyes better, and they agree to fight again later, when they're able to fight each-other at full power. Looks like the episode is going to be over, and that we'll see Goku and Pan looking for the next dragon, or seeking out Si Xing Long for a remach next episode... But then, plot twist, Yi Xing Long appears, and basically dominates both of them. Everyone else begins to appear to help Goku out, and... It's hopeless. Goku and Vegeta try fusing, but they only get half-way to beating him... In the end, the dragon kills Goku, and is basically ready to kill everyone else, and presumably destroy the planet itself before he eventually gives out.

I'm gonna get into some of the stuff implied in episode 64, and a lot of the material in the Evil Dragons arc that wasn't outright stated. There's a lot to unpack in the arc, particularly in episode 64, so you'll excuse me if I say some things that aren't literally stated in the dialogue...

So, the thing is, the whole purpose of the Evil Dragons is that if you've abused the power of the Dragon Balls, the Evil Dragons come forth and clean house. If you continually rely on the Dragon Balls, then you're upsetting the natural order, something the dragons will remedy by wiping out the planet, so you can't do that anymore. The dragons exist to put an end to overuse of the balls. Each dragon has their way of bringing about mass destruction on the planet, even the honourable Si Xing Long, who doesn't align with the other dragons, would cause conflict through his love of fighting; his fight with Goku caused damage, though the area they were fighting in had already been abandoned. If Goku hadn't been there, he'd probably have fought with his brother, or Yi Xing Long, or any of the other dragons, which would cause a lot of destruction.

The dragons can be defeated, but that takes an extraordinary effort, one that proves the people of the planet are ready to deal without the balls, and they understand the lesson taught by the presence of the evil dragons. Most of them do have a personality to them; they have ambitions, desires, etc., but ultimately, there has to be the one that will make sure the dragons don't get distracted, and they do carry out their goal; if left to their own devices, San Xing Long and Si Xing Long would probably fight for the rest of theire days, Liang Xing Long would wallow in his mud pit, Wu Xing Long and Qi Xing Long would destroy structures to watch the explosions and crumbling, and Liu Xing Long would continue to thrive on the adoration of her loyal subjects.
Yi Xing Long ensures that the ultimate point reached by the presence of the dragons is destruction of the planet, or at the very least, the death of all its people.

And, outside of an in-universe thing, from a narrative perspective, it's a good idea to have just a destructive force as the final villain to face, because the characterisation in those last several episodes isn't about a villain with complex motives, it's about how the goodguys react to a force that threatens to destroy their entire world, and pretty damn-near manages it.

In the end, Shen Long and Goku cut some sort of deal; the Dragon Balls deactivate for 100 years, and Goku becomes some sort of ghost who isn't allowed to hang around on earth for long. But, in exchange, he's allowed a chance to defeat Yi Xing Long, and Shen Long even agrees to repair the damage done to the earth for the sake of all the innocents affected by this ordeal.

The purpose and function of the Evil Dragons makes total sense when you think about it, and Yi Xing Long's lack of any real character outside of "Destructive force of chaos" makes sense, and is justifiable both narratively, and in-universe.

Many others have gone into why Beerus, and Black/Zamasu are interesting villains before me, and they've all probably done a better job than I could, so I won't go into it.

Anyway, this brings us around to Freeza.
So, he's a tyrant bent on conquering the universe and gaining immortality to he can rule and be evil for all eternity? Okay... So, not a particularly deep or complex character, but that's okay, what about narratively? Well... Really, the intrigue of the arc was more about the struggle between the three factions involved on who would get the balls first. Narratively, Freeza doesn't really do much until we get into the endgame stuff where his function is "Strong guy for Goku to Super Saiyan slam into oblivion." Before that, he's basicallly just the guy everyone's afarid of, who hangs around ordering the minibosses to fight the protagonists.
Don't get me wrong, I don't consider Freeza to be a bad villain, but he basically only works in the Freeza arc because they need a big strong guy to fill that role, and Ryusei Nakao(And later Chris Ayres, probably Lee Tockar too, though we won't know for sure for quite a while) played him in a way that he's incredibly fun to watch. And for the story the Freeza arc was telling, Freeza was pretty much the ideal villain.
But, he's just not an interesting villain.

I'm certainly less than fond of the character's over-exposure in the recent Super/revival material and have discussed that in-depth lately, but this is WAY too much of a swing in the other opposite extreme. Freeza's easily one of the best characterized main villains in the whole series without question. Even if he isn't your favorite ever (which in itself is more than fair: different strokes for different folks and all), putting him as the single least interesting ("by far" even) is absurdly over-the-top hyperbolic. Less interesting than someone like Commander Red? Really?

Now I'm curious as to whom you WOULD pick for the top spot of "most interesting". Even if you're someone who's REALLY into DB for its comedic bits, I still can't imagine it'd be Pilaf or any of the Red Ribbon goons (and I'm as fond of Murasaki and Blue as the next person, but still...). And judging by some of your other posts in other threads, I'm finding it doubtful it'd be Cell or Boo (though who knows, I could be wrong). Piccolo Daimao? Tao Pai Pai? Vegeta? Am genuinely curious.

He's well characterised, he's fun, he's a good villain, he's exceptionally entertaining, I like him very much, but he isn't an interesting villain.
I'd say the most interesting one is either Piccolo or Boo.

[ABED]

If he's entertaining, how is he not interesting? How do you define interesting? This isn't me being pedantic or asking for semantics. I literally can't make sense of your view in light of you saying he's well characterized, a good villain, and entertaining.

Your analysis of Red is far more interesting than the character himself. Considering how much thought you put into that analysis, it's baffling you can't put apply that to Freeza. Here's a guy who is far more powerful than even his strongest subordinate and yet he still has a nagging fear in the back of his mind. He's carries himself and speaks like a gentleman even doing the most horrific acts and when finally pushed, that mask of civility drops and we see the truly sadistic bastard he is.

his story is one in which his personal demons come out and do tremendous damage to not only his own personal life, but to all those around him, however with the help of others, he's able to make peace with his demons, and become a more rounded person(In this case, literally).

This isn't a story of a character dealing with something like alcoholism. He has no personal life. He's a big pink bubblegum monster who magically changes forms and personalities by magically absorbing people or expelling his evil side.

[Robo4900]

If he's entertaining, how is he not interesting?

He's like most of the MCU villains; there's nothing to dig into about him, no character to analyse, no narrative subtlety about them to unpick, he's just fun to watch. He serves his purpose, and he serves it well, but if it wasn't for Ryusei Nakao's charisma, he'd be pretty dull.

Your analysis of Red is far more interesting than the character himself. Considering how much thought you put into that analysis, it's baffling you can't put apply that to Freeza. Here's a guy who is far more powerful than even his strongest subordinate and yet he still has a nagging fear in the back of his mind. He's carries himself and speaks like a gentleman even doing the most horrific acts and when finally pushed, that mask of civility drops and we see the truly sadistic bastard he is.

There's no real depth to it though, and it's nothing new. Everything Red does stems from his insecurity about his height, and he goes to sadistic places to get it solved. We'd never had a villain like that in Dragon Ball before him, he's fresh, he's new. Even as just another villain in the roster, he's a regular human who's gone to these insane measures and pretty much bluffed and lied his way on top of the most powerful organisation in the world.
Freeza is really strong. People follow the strong guy. Because he kills them if they don't. He gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he kills the people who stand in his way. It's as simple as that.
He's like Piccolo, but without the interesting narrative twists and the jarring feeling his narrative-breaking presence elicits.

[ABED]

If he's entertaining, how is he not interesting?

He's like most of the MCU villains; there's nothing to dig into about him, no character to analyse, no narrative subtlety about them to unpick, he's just fun to watch. He serves his purpose, and he serves it well, but if it wasn't for Ryusei Nakao's charisma, he'd be pretty dull.

I just gave you something to analyze. His fear. He fears something that logically he shouldn't. He's an elitist and entitled. He sees himself as a gentleman. There's a lot more to him than you give him credit for.

You spent a big paragraph talking up Dr. Gero and brought up the son stuff and I'm sorry, that's boring and clichéd. It's not deep characterization. What is so problematic for people about Dr. Gero holding a grudge against Goku purely on the grounds that he brought down the Red Ribbon Army?

I read your paragraph and while I like the enthusiasm and that you thought it out, it reads like someone often reading way too much into things and reading all sorts of inferences than were intended. It reminds me of an article in defense of the dance scene in Spider-Man 3. The thesis is that the silliness of the dance scene was in character because it was Peter's idea of what's cool. No matter how well reasoned Faraci's defense of the scene, it is still one of the scenes that makes that movie so awful. No matter how interesting your write up is, Red will be nothing more than villain with a mildly amusing motivation that subverts expectation. The actual character isn't interesting. I don't enjoy watching him. Given how thin Red's actual characterization is, I'd say you could analyze any character which is why I find it BAFFLING that you don't think you can analyze Freeza to the same degree.

There's no real depth to it though, and it's nothing new. Everything Red does stems from his insecurity about his height, and he goes to sadistic places to get it solved. We'd never had a villain like that in Dragon Ball before him, he's fresh, he's new. Even as just another villain in the roster, he's a regular human who's gone to these insane measures and pretty much bluffed and lied his way on top of the most powerful organisation in the world.
Freeza is really strong. People follow the strong guy. Because he kills them if they don't. He gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he kills the people who stand in his way. It's as simple as that.
He's like Piccolo, but without the interesting narrative twists and the jarring feeling his narrative-breaking presence elicits.

What do you consider deep? The lengths Red goes to are interesting, but HE is not. I have no interest in watching him. He's not entertaining. And while his motivation is silly and twisted, his actual reason for doing what he does isn't actually explored. It's little more than a joke. Sometimes people are very simple in their desires. There's not always a need to complicate things.

Lastly, stories and characters are all about execution. Many of the things you've listed about these characters sound great on paper, but where they succeed or fail is in execution. It doesn't matter how deep a character's motives are supposed to be, if the execution (either in the writing or performance or both) is off, it won't mean a damn thing. Conversely, a character like Freeza is very simple, but as you say, he's incredibly entertaining villain and that's worth its weight in gold.

[Robo4900]

I just gave you something to analyze. His fear. He fears something that logically he shouldn't.

He doesn't have a nagging fear in the back of his mind. He destroyed the Saiyan planet because he thought they might revolt against him, especially if that prophecy of theirs is true, but it doesn't matter either way; with or without the Saiyans, his forces are plenty strong enough to conquer the universe. He isn't a man who has an irrational fear, he's a man who does what he wants, and gets what he wants, simply because he wants it, and he doesn't care about anyone or anything else. Ultimately, if something gets in his way, he destroys it. If it might get in his way, he destroys it.
So, the monkeys look like they might revolt or uncover an ancient prophecy and use it to overthrow him? He destroys them. As I say, his forces are strong enough without the Saiyans, so why run the risk? Plus, he likes destroying things.

You spent a big paragraph talking up Dr. Gero and brought up the son stuff and I'm sorry, that's boring and clichéd. It's not deep characterization. What is so problematic for people about Dr. Gero holding a grudge against Goku purely on the grounds that he brought down the Red Ribbon Army?

I pointedly ignored the stuff about his son outside of the very beginning acknowledgement of that backstory(After which I made a point of disregarding it), and the very end when I talked about what that implies about Cell wanting to destroy the universe, not because the backstory itself adds new depths and amazing development to Gero's character, but because it helps us draw a conclusion about what's actually going on in the main story.

Let's go into a little pet theory of mine, I'm sure many of you will agree with me on this: Backstory =/= characterisation.
Jiren isn't boring because of his clichéd backstory, he's boring because he has no character.
Dr. Gero isn't interesting because his son got killed, he's interesting because of the way he acts, the lengths he goes to, and what he programs his creations to do. Digging into why a character does things can add an extra layer, and his son getting killed along with him programming Cell to destroy basically all of creation sheds some further insight into the lengths he would go to, and that's what's interesting. Digging into Toriyama's "his son got killed" backstory won't get you anywhere on its own because, as you say, it is pretty boring and clichéd. The intersting question his son getting killed answers isn't "Why is he trying to kill Goku?", it's "Why was Cell going to destroy the universe?".

Jiren's backstory doesn't fall flat because it's bad, it falls flat because it adds nothing. It's the answer to a mystery box no one cared about. If he'd been a rich character who the backstory just adds more layers to, it would've worked.
Dr. Gero's backstory doesn't add new depths because it's a fresh new story(And it isn't a fresh new story), it adds new depths because it can be used to re-examine certain things about him, and recontextualise questions like the Cell question I just went into. If all it was there to do was to give us a switcheroo on Gero's motivations, it probably wouldn't have worked. And I think that's part of why Toriyama flipped the plot on its head, and never went into this within the story.

Really, though, this is only the most minor part of my analysis of Gero. If you don't agree with me about Gero's backstory, I'm willing to concede that, but the rest of my analysis of Gero still stands.

I read your paragraph and while I like the enthusiasm and that you thought it out, it reads like someone often reading way too much into things and reading all sorts of inferences than were intended. It reminds me of an article in defense of the dance scene in Spider-Man 3. The thesis is that the silliness of the dance scene was in character because it was Peter's idea of what's cool. No matter how well reasoned Faraci's defense of the scene, it is still one of the scenes that makes that movie so awful. No matter how interesting your write up is, Red will be nothing more than villain with a mildly amusing motivation that subverts expectation. The actual character isn't interesting. I don't enjoy watching him. Given how thin Red's actual characterization is, I'd say you could analyze any character which is why I find it BAFFLING that you don't think you can analyze Freeza to the same degree.

Just because you don't like Red's characterisation, doesn't stop him from being an interesting character.

Also, the analysis of the Spider-Man 3 dance scene that Parker thinks that's what cool is is pretty on-point as far as I'm concerned. Don't get me wrong, it's a bad scene, and it symbolises a lot of what's wrong with the movie, but if Spider-Man 3 had been a better movie overall, and if the scene had been shorter, and if they had been a bigger deal about how uncomfortable everyone else is about it, I think it could have worked.

Ultimately, does it matter if what I'm reading into something was intended or not? Characterisation isn't what the author tries to put on the page, it's what you end up seeing on screen, and how you percieve it. While authorial intent factors into how we perceive a work, ultimately we can't be sure what was and wasn't intended unless the author comes out and breaks down everything piece by piece to tell us what was meant, and even if they did, how it reads on the screen(Or page) may ultimately differ from that, and at least sometimes, the way it reads that differs from the original intent can be better. George Lucas is adamant that Han shooting Greedo came off way stronger than he intended, which is why he changed it in the subsequent editions... And yet, most will agree Han shooting before Greedo can ever fire off a shot makes Han's character arc better. So, who's right?

What do you consider deep? The lengths Red goes to are interesting, but HE is not. I have no interest in watching him. He's not entertaining. And while his motivation is silly and twisted, his actual reason for doing what he does isn't actually explored. It's little more than a joke. Sometimes people are very simple in their desires. There's not always a need to complicate things.

As I've been trying to tell you this whole time: Entertained by this villain =/= this villain is interesting.
Many of GT's haters will talk about why Baby is interesting, but will remain adamant that he sucks.

As I've said, I don't dislike Freeza. He's highly entertaining. But, he is not an interesting character, his purpose in the narrative is simply the final boss. People are scared of him, but he just kind of hangs around and lets the plot happen until it's time for the final boss to be fought.
And that's fine.
But that's not interesting. And neither is he.

Lastly, stories and characters are all about execution. Many of the things you've listed about these characters sound great on paper, but where they succeed or fail is in execution. It doesn't matter how deep a character's motives are supposed to be, if the execution (either in the writing or performance or both) is off, it won't mean a damn thing. Conversely, a character like Freeza is very simple, but as you say, he's incredibly entertaining villain and that's worth its weight in gold.

I don't see what you're getting at here, to be honest. Execution means a lot of things(Which is one of a number of reasons I hate the "gt had good ideas but bad execution" argument; it means nothing); how the actor read for a character can change how we perceive the character(The script for David Tennant's first episode of Doctor Who was written as if it was still Christopher Eccleston in the role, they relied entirely on Tennant's delivery to make his Doctor a different character), exactly how a given reveal is staged can change how we perceive the character... How a shot is framed can change things entirely...
In my analysis, I attempted to look through the facts, and talk about how they interact with each-other, and what it all means. To refer back to the thing about Dr. Gero's son, I mentioned it at the beginning, but made a point of disregarding it. It's not in the show(Or the manga), so it doesn't matter, the execution ended up ignoring it. I went back to it later, and discussed how that can affect the story just to put that in there, but it was mostly a last-minute thought I had about it, since it's quite a popular piece of word of god. It was an afterthought tagged onto the end of the analysis. Ignore it if you like, hell ignore the whole analysis if you want, I'm not telling you how to think. I'm just sharing my point of view. And seriously, this deep analysis stuff is my point of view. This is how I see the series. Once I've seen something, just letting it sit as-is is boring to me, and seems like a waste, given the nuance and detail that often goes into such media; analysing what I've seen, going over what it implies, how it affects the narrative, how the story holds together, why various things happen is, for me, a lot of how I enjoy media.
So, I assure you, I'm not just bulcrapping this all to make a point, this is honestly how I see the series. As I said above, I'm not necessarily looking at authorial intent, I'm looking at what ended up onscreen, or as you would put it, how it ended up being executed.
So, I don't see what you're getting at here about execution.

And you still seem to have not at all grasped what I mean when I say Freeza isn't interesting, despite the fact I have repeatedly explained myself, you're still clinging to the idea that interesting and entertaining are one in the same in this line of conversation, which I've repeatedly tried to dissuede.

Also, I missed this amidst your post edits...

This isn't a story of a character dealing with something like alcoholism. He has no personal life. He's a big pink bubblegum monster who magically changes forms and personalities by magically absorbing people or expelling his evil side.

If you're unwilling to look past the superficial, you'll never understand my point of view. He's not just a big pink bubblegum monster who magically changes forms and personalities. That's what he physically is, but character isn't just about what you are outside, basically all of it comes from what's in their head. In his head, he's a big child who's been told the entire universe is his playground, and as long as he keeps destroying things, Babidi will keep rewarding him with desserts.
Imagine a child who's been taught by his father to be rough, a child who goes to school and becomes rather a bully. He has no personal life, all he knows is "Hurt things, get candy, do what dad says." Then, his dad is out of the picture, and he's shown a better way. This is basically Boo's story. It's dressed up in the trappings of the fantasy/sci-fi world of Dragon Ball, but this is what most stories are; simple, relatable stories dressed up in fancy trappings to make them feel bigger.
Thor: Ragnarok is a guy who's home is being ransacked, so he's on a road trip trying to get home with his kind of terrible brother, his friend who has anger issues, and his other friend who's a drunk.

Basically any good story boils down to a relatable arc that real people with real feelings are going through. Without relatability, you have no story.

[ABED]

What do you mean by interesting? How does that differ from entertaining? Just looking at a google search of the definitions, they are remarkably similar.

Freeza does fear the Saiyans. Why pre-emptively destroy them if he wasn't of the prophecy? He's afraid they will usurp him.

Which is one of a number of reasons I hate the "gt had good ideas but bad execution" argument; it means nothing

It's hardly meaningless. It means that the ideas being presented COULD be interesting if they were executed better. A lot of the ideas sound appealing on paper but because the writing and the fighting were bad, the ideas fall flat. It's at the heart of this discussion. You can analyze things all you want, and it can all sound great on paper, but if the character isn't entertaining, doesn't hold your attention, then all the deep analysis in the world won't matter. Red isn't made more entertaining by discussing his Napoleon complex. He's little more than a generic evil boss with a funny motivation.

relatable stories dressed up in fancy trappings to make them feel bigger.

It's not. Buu is a magical creation and his personality changes based on magical stimuli. The whole reason he has any good in him is because he absorbed a good deity. In his purest form, he's destruction incarnate. Again, I go back to YOU are adding all this subtext

What you and I find interesting or entertaining are different. Not everyone needs things to be relatable to be interesting. It can help but it's not a pre-requisite.

[TheShadowEmperor8055]

I thought Majin Buu was an utterly ridiculous and shoddy main antagonist in the manga's story (and I still do).

I dont think that this is really that unpopular if at all.

Buu is an extremely boring villain and just very annoying. Definitely the worst of Z and probably the worst in the franchise (not including Gt)

No, it is unpopular, Majin Buu has had a lot of positive reception. You probably just haven't seen a lot of it then.

I don't like good Majin Buu (fat) or pure Majin Buu (kid). And I guess you could consider pure evil Majin Buu (skinny) and evil Majin Buu (super) to be the same character? Regardless, evil Majin Buu was a bit more ok to me when he actually learned how to say comprehensible sentences. Even then, he was still pretty silly to me and just so off in general as a character. Though, I'm inclined to agree that he's worst villain in Z. But that's just my (and your) opinion.

[ABED]

I'm the inverse. I don't like his intermediate forms between his fat self and his original form.