DB's Revival

[ABED]

DB is one of many revivals in the last decade or so. On the whole, revivals are mostly mediocre to terrible. It's taken me watching a lot of these to reach that conclusion and identify why I'm mostly bored by them. And yet, I still watch them. Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I watch them mostly through streaming so the marginal cost is effectively zero. It comes down to an issue of time. I've gone on the record as being mostly bored by DB's revival specifically. After having gotten through 1/3 of Super, BoG, RoF, and Broly, I've softened a little. I still believe DB was best having stayed dormant, but I find myself enjoying good chunks of the series. It's funny and even clever at times. The fights aren't what DB were at their best, but there are some stand out moments. I now think of DB like pizza. Even mediocre pizza is enjoyable.

For the record, the reasons most revivals don't work are:
- The magic is gone
- They are too reliant on nostalgia and fanservice
- Characters are either kept in stasis from when we last saw them or worse, they are regressed in order to force a character arc.
- By the end of a series, the characters' journeys were completed.

Edit: THIS IS NOT A THREAD PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT VOICING MY DISPLEASURE AT THE GLUT OF REVIVALS. My point that apparently isn't clear enough is I have seen Super, and it's fine. Not terrible, just mediocre, and I AM FINE WITH THAT.

[Vijay]

Here we go.

Again.

The purpose of this thread?

Anyone who's had arguments with you in the past would know abt your points revolvin mostly around "journey had ended"

DragonBall's an unique series. Yes. The show started off as gag, later martial arts before blowing-up into full-scale power showdowns of epic proportions.

But. But. The series is far from "end". Unless ur personal preferences stands in the way.

DB has over 200+ characters. Think abt the potential untapped storylines. Toriyama barely scratched the surface level storytelling with Boo Arc.

It's simply brah. Take it or leave it. As much as I hate GT, half-assed Kai/Kai 2.0, DBS & Heroes (don't hate it, but I don't love it either) I wouldnt mind enjoying some DB materials. Episode of Bardock & Plan to Eradicate the Saiyan's was cool. I felt BOG & ROF to be alright.

DBS would've been terrific had it was handled by BONES, Sunrise or Madhouse. But hey, it still entertained millions of old time DB fans out there. Just YouTube reaction videos (DBS Ep 130 for instance)

I personally have washed my hands off DBS & TOEI with substandard products fans have been given. But guess what? It's of no use if just 1 or 2 random fellas talk it out in forum which AT or TOEI knows nothin abt.

Fans collectively should boycott subpar DB related products to serve as wake-up call for TOEI. I expected that to happen with Kai back in 2009/2010 itself. Nope.

Expected it to occur with DBS as early as Ep 5 itself. Nope.

Fans have been receptive to whatever bullcrap TOEI has served & you tell me who's at fault brother?

[ABED]

Vijay, it doesn't seem like you gave my post more than a cursory glance. If anything, my view has softened. I still don't love series revivals, but as long as DB is suitably entertaining, then fine. That was my point, and one you seemed to have missed.

Think abt the potential untapped storylines.

Care to give an example?

[ronaldnorth_03]

It is a little dangerous to treat the classics as impeccable. But I do that. This rebirth of the franchise, for me, is part of an extension of the original story, so it's up to you to include it or not.

Dragon Ball for me is the 444 episodes released between 1986 and 1995, the rest is just for casual entertainment.

[Vijay]

It is a little dangerous to treat the classics as impeccable. But I do that. This rebirth of the franchise, for me, is part of an extension of the original story, so it's up to you to include it or not.

Dragon Ball for me is the 444 episodes released between 1986 and 1995, the rest is just for casual entertainment.

Haha. Really liked the way ur put it out. Rest is casual entertainment

Yeah right. Toriyama's heart & soul was evident in every bit of DB/DBZ. So there's solid reason as to why I view it as canon/true, vintage original DB. Rest are merely side stories, extensions of original version that depends on individual preferences

[ABED]

It is a little dangerous to treat the classics as impeccable. But I do that.

Interesting, would you mind expanding on this?

[Matches Malone]

My issue with the revival is that most of it doesn't do enough to justify its existence. DB minus took one of the best DB stories and threw it out for something that's nowhere near the same level. Toriyama could've easily written a story about Goku's mother without stepping on the original special's toes.

The BOG movie is a masterpiece, and I will always be grateful to the revival for giving us that as I think it's just as good as the original material. It introduced new concepts, new characters, and developed the existing ones further. It also works as an ending to the original manga's story by establishing that no matter how strong you get, or how much you see, there'll always be something better out there. That's what Roshi told Goku when he trained him and Krillin and I think it brought that back full circle.

RF is the complete opposite as despite being an enjoyable movie, it doesn't introduce anything new to the lore, nor does it do anything new with the characters involved. The Freeza arc is arguably the best part of the franchise, so there was no need to revisit it, especially if they weren't going to do anything new with it.

Super's movie retellings...happened...for some reason.

Champa's tournament was OK, but that's far from what you'd expect from the first anime arc in 19 or so years. Apart from wasting time on an alternate Saiyan and Freeza, its quality paled in comparison to the tournaments we got in DB, both in terms of writing and production.

Goku Black's character was great, but instead of exploring U10, we just wasted time in Trunks' timeline. Another issue with the arc is that it's very similar to the Cell arc in that Trunks needs help defeating someone attacking his timeline.

The tournament of power is the biggest offender when it comes to wasted potential. It took 6 whole universes and turned their characters into cookie cutters of each other with the most generic personalities and designs. It also had no business taking up 55 episodes when it could've easily done what it wanted to in half of that. The environment was terrible as well as it was the most lifeless thing they could've thought of.

Broly's production is nothing short of breathtaking, but I would've preferred to see that go into something original instead. Like the Namek arc, Broly's original movie was perfectly serviceable and I don't think there's enough in the new version to justify remaking/rebooting it.

The Moro arc is everything I've been waiting for since BOG. New villain, new powers, new lore, Goku and Vegeta doing their own thing, the rest of the cast getting to shine, Buu doing something other than falling asleep, etc. If this is an example of what's to come, then I believe that modern DB will be able to make up for the missteps it took up to this point.

[ABED]

In all honesty, I didn't mind the BoG retelling. I thought it did a decent job of taking the beats of the movie and elongating them. The RoF compounds the movie's problems because it's the same issues and longer. Adding Ginyu made it even worse.

One moment from Super that I adored is seeing Goku truly bond with Pan. It was a great simple moment. The part where he told her he would take her to the stars if his powers weren't on the fritz was beautiful.

I also quite like the fight scenes. The scale is something of an issue, but the strategies are often interesting and I can sometimes feel the exhaustion, which was a big problem in GT. I for one enjoyed the Champa arc. The abilities and personalities were interesting and I just want to give Monaka a hug.

I don't care about lore or exploring the other galaxies. It's not what's interesting, narratively speaking. And Broly was everything wrong with revivals. I also think the animation in it is highly overrated.

[Grimlock]

Care to give an example?

Well, since this is not the first time (and not the second, for that matter) you create a thread just to say Dragon Ball should remain dead, I'm just gonna say it is pointless to provide you examples if you are going to find whatever reason to keep repelling them, such as "it has been done before", "there is nothing to be untapped there", "there is nothing to expand on that", "it is just not interesting" and many more. There are so much to be explored or that can be expanded, that is an undeniable fact. So it's just a matter of letting your personal feelings aside so that you can see what is there on the horizon.

But don't get me wrong, I do agree that the series of Dragon Ball should have remained dead, but the reasons are solely nostalgia and that they seemingly can't explore what is there on the horizon. Most of what they came up was very subpar: retellings, some unnecessary characters coming back, multiple tournaments in a row, etc... If that's the best they can do, alright, keep it dead, there's nothing to see here. But if the intention is to leave the safe zone, then there's more content out there indeed.

[ABED]

Care to give an example?

Well, since this is not the first time (and not the second, for that matter) you create a thread just to say Dragon Ball should remain dead, I'm just gonna say it is pointless to provide you examples if you are going to find whatever reason to keep repelling them, such as "it has been done before", "there is nothing to be untapped there", "there is nothing to expand on that", "it is just not interesting" and many more. There are so much to be explored or that can be expanded, that is an undeniable fact. So it's just a matter of letting your personal feelings aside so that you can see what is there on the horizon.

But don't get me wrong, I do agree that the series of Dragon Ball should have remained dead, but the reasons are solely nostalgia and that they seemingly can't explore what is there on the horizon. Most of what they came up was very subpar: retellings, some unnecessary characters coming back, multiple tournaments in a row, etc... If that's the best they can do, alright, keep it dead, there's nothing to see here. But if the intention is to leave the safe zone, then there's more content out there indeed.

Did I create a thread or more than one to say DB should remain dead? I don't recall, but regardless, you also didn't pay close attention. That isn't the point of this thread. Please, reread the opening post.

[Grimlock]

I still believe DB was best having stayed dormant,

I read, and my post stands. Like I said, this is not the first time I see you saying Dragon Ball should remain dead and whatever is your main goal here other than to say it again it should have stayed dormant, I felt like saying something on your issue with it.

[Matches Malone]

I also quite like the fight scenes. The scale is something of an issue, but the strategies are often interesting and I can sometimes feel the exhaustion, which was a big problem in GT.

I don't care about lore or exploring the other galaxies. It's not what's interesting, narratively speaking.

I also like the fights, for the most part. I just wish the stories were better.

My issue with the universes is that they introduced them only to do nothing interesting and kill any potential future stories with them. Instead of having the tournament be between 8 underdeveloped universes, it should've just been between u7, u6, u11, and maybe a 4th universe. That way things won't be rushed and what they'd have would've gotten proper usage while the rest could've been saved for later.

[ronaldnorth_03]

It is a little dangerous to treat the classics as impeccable. But I do that.

Interesting, would you mind expanding on this?

I have watched Dragon Ball since I was three years old, it was and has been part of my life until today. And over time you realize that the series was finished after End of Z, for me, I had nowhere else to go. And with Super, although I find it interesting, I don't feel that they are part of the same story. Just look at Goku.

There is a very interesting section where Videl is concerned about Gohan being attacked by Spopovich, so Goku holds her and calms her down, all in the most serene way possible. That is needed. Sure, Goku is and always will be an idiot, but with the passing of the years it diminished, but today, he came back with everything. In Dragon Ball Super: Broly there is a moment that makes me ashamed is when Goku and Vegeta argue about Freeza wanting to take revenge on them. It's pathetic. The characters don't look the same.

In short, Dragon Ball Super (the revival) is an uncompromised '' continuation '' of the original series, that's all. For me, of course.

[Robo4900]

Another "was the revival actually a good thing?" thread? Is it Sunday already?

Seriously, the last piece of media in the revival was a full year ago last month, itself a full 6-11 years out from the revival's beginning (depending on whether you count the revival as starting with one of the OVAs from 2008-2011, Kai in 2009, or BOG in 2013); I think everything of substance that can be said has already been said to death already, and the only reason to tredge this subject up is if you have something new to add to it.
As it stands, your thesis here seems to be exactly the same general reservations people have always held about revivals that are already tired and cliché to bring up -- they make things less special, there's too much of a reliance on fanservice, etc. -- and the same problems that have constantly been brought up in regards to Super in particular -- characters are in stasis from when we last saw them, or have regressed, Toriyama lost his touch, etc. -- all of which have been discussed to death, even just in the past year.

Do you actually have anything new to bring to the table with this thread? 'Cause I feel like there's nothing to say that hasn't already been said on this subject in one of many other threads that already exist. And honestly, many of these felt quite needless to me too.

[ABED]

I still believe DB was best having stayed dormant,

I read, and my post stands. Like I said, this is not the first time I see you saying Dragon Ball should remain dead and whatever is your main goal here other than to say it again it should have stayed dormant, I felt like saying something on your issue with it.

Surely you've said it before, so what point does it serve to reiterate it when it wasn't a response to the point I'm making now? My viewpoint has changed and you're getting peeved over something I said in the past. Take the sentence you quoted. There's a 'but' there that's vitally important to this discussion. You are dropping context. If you disagree with my opinion, fine, but please have the dignity to actually disagree with what I've said and not drop context.

Another "was the revival actually a good thing?" thread? Is it Sunday already?

Seriously, three people who miss the point I'm making? What isn't clear about my point? Could I be any clearer when I say I'm not a fan of revivals, but I think DB's has been entertaining enough that I've made my piece with it. It's mediocre, but enjoyable enough. I ask this not to be defensive, but I don't understand what about the original post leads anyone to think I'm just complaining about the revival. I didn't bury the lede. I'm aware that I'm not the most clear writer and should probably give posts at least a quick edit for clarity, but the post isn't that long. Many of these responses feel reflexively negative and like you glanced over my post and because you're familiar enough with my views, you somehow glossed over how this thread was concerned with showing I am being reflective about my opinions, especially in light of having seen Super, finally. I'm aware there are a lot of these threads pointing out the problems of the revivals, but if I didn't feel I had something new to offer, I wouldn't have created this one.

Do you actually have anything new to bring to the table with this thread?

Yes, that I've made peace with it and find it passably enjoyable. Certainly enjoyable enough to spend $6 for a month's subscription to Funimation's streaming service to watch all of it.

[Robo4900]

Seriously, three people who miss the point I'm making? What isn't clear about my point? Could I be any clearer when I say I'm not a fan of revivals, but I think DB's has been entertaining enough that I've made my piece with it. It's mediocre, but enjoyable enough. I ask this not to be defensive, but I don't understand what about the original post leads anyone to think I'm just complaining about the revival. I didn't bury the lede.

Do you actually have anything new to bring to the table with this thread?

Yes, that I've made peace with it and find it passably enjoyable. Certainly enjoyable enough to spend $6 for a month's subscription to Funimation's streaming service to watch all of it.

"The Dragon Ball revival has been entertaining enough" is not a new take, it's probably the most popular opinion of Super. As you said, it's pizza. "I'm not a fan of revivals" is a dime-a-dozen "hot take" that's actually about as cold and tired as they get. You can bring up interesting reasons for why a specific work doesn't need a revival, but "i don't like revivals" is such a summative, general, boring, overdone thing, it's not interesting in and of itself.
Combining these things does not bring something new to the table. Sure, it's not the most common combination, but it hardly makes for a groundbreaking start to a new thread on the subject of revivals, and specifically Dragon Ball's revival.

And even if Super's general discourse was any more interesting than "Most people just kinda enjoy it, but a lot of people think it's a pretty shit revival, and a lot of people are still bitter about not liking GT, so a lot of it is just arguing over which show did what better", your take is very lukewarm, and doesn't go any deeper than a surface-level summation of its overall subjective quality.
Do you have anything interesting to say about depths of the narrative? Interesting stuff about the placement, production, or composition of the music? An insight into the theming, the ideas of the writers, how Toriyama has evolved (or devolved?) as a storyteller, how the response to Super reflects on our culture both in general and specifically as the Dragon Ball fandom has evolved in the past ~20 years?... Honestly, even these are largely talked to death, but at least that's something specific to discuss, rather than just the general "it's an ok show, bront"

Liking vs disliking vs being neutral on a something, in my view, is about the most surface-level, summative, boring thing to bring up, and if that's all you have to bring to the table on a show as over-discussed as Dragon Ball Super, then I say you've brought up nothing new or interesting. Certainly nothing that justifies yet another thread on the tired topic of "was dragon ball's revival good?" Frankly, I think an in-depth discussion of power levels is a more worthwhile use of one's time.

[ABED]

Seriously, three people who miss the point I'm making? What isn't clear about my point? Could I be any clearer when I say I'm not a fan of revivals, but I think DB's has been entertaining enough that I've made my piece with it. It's mediocre, but enjoyable enough. I ask this not to be defensive, but I don't understand what about the original post leads anyone to think I'm just complaining about the revival. I didn't bury the lede.

Do you actually have anything new to bring to the table with this thread?

Yes, that I've made peace with it and find it passably enjoyable. Certainly enjoyable enough to spend $6 for a month's subscription to Funimation's streaming service to watch all of it.

"The Dragon Ball revival has been entertaining enough" is not a new take, it's probably the most popular opinion of Super. "I'm not a fan of revivals" is a dime-a-dozen opinion.
Combining these things does not bring something new to the table. Sure, it's not the most common combination, but it hardly makes for a groundbreaking start to a new thread on the subject of revivals, and specifically Dragon Ball's revival.
And even if Super discourse was any more interesting than "Most people just kinda enjoy it, but a lot of people think it's a pretty shit revival", your take is very lukewarm, and doesn't go any deeper than "revivals are tired. but i think this one is not entirely a waste of $6 a month and 20 minutes of my time a week."
Do you have anything interesting to say about depths of the narrative? Interesting stuff about the placement, production, or composition of the music? An insight into the theming, the ideas of the writers, how Toriyama has evolved (or devolved?) as a storyteller, how the response to Super reflects on our culture both in general and specifically as the Dragon Ball fandom has evolved in the past ~20 years?... Honestly, even these are largely talked to death, but at least that's something specific to discuss, rather than just the general "it's an ok show, bront"

Liking vs disliking vs being neutral on a something, in my view, is about the most surface-level, summative, boring thing to bring up, and if that's all you have to bring to the table, then I still say you've brought up nothing new or interesting. Certainly nothing that justifies yet another thread on the tired topic of "was dragon ball's revival good?"

It's a new take for me. It's me being reflective. If I wanted to say something about the depths of the narrative or the music, or anything you mentioned, I would either create those threads, but I didn't want to at this point. I wanted to say that my opinion has changed over time. I used to look forward to series coming back as it was catching up with old friends. Saw enough that I found boring that my opinion soured, and now, I've come to realize that sometimes it's enough to just be entertained by something. The level of artistry may not be what it once was, but I'm experienced and old enough now to be fine with sitting back and enjoying something for what it is, that is of course if I find it interesting. If no one finds my experiences interesting, fine. I thought my journey of self reflection was interesting enough to share with fellow DB fans. This is not nor has it ever been a thread about whether the revival was good. You didn't bother reading closely to see what my fundamental point was.

If you are bored by this, fine, but why respond to this thread anyway?

[emperior]

The original manga is there to stay FOREVER. The revival didn’t happen through chapter 520, it happened first with two movies and then with an animated show and a manga both under the name of “Dragon Ball Super”.

The purists who hate the new material can easily not consider it, or treat it as a side continuation of the original work — even though it’s fully approved by Toriyama who also wrote 3 movies by himself - as they did with GT all this time.

To address your points of the revival’s common problems, let’s see how Super does in my view:

1. The magic is gone:
This is the classic phrase people say. It has no meaning, and is highly subjective.
What is the magic people speak about? The nostalgia? The feelings DB used to provoke when we were much younger and carefree?
Battle of Gods for me has all the magic the original work had. Many, many parts of Dragon Ball Super have that same magic. Heck, some parts are pretty much on par, if not above, the stuff in the work of Toriyama.
Many, almost all of the new characters introduced in Super are characters I really like. And while the stories may not be perfect, overall not on the same level as the stories in the original manga, there are individual moments/episodes/chapters that I consider 10/10.

2. Too reliant on nostalgia and fanservice:
This complaint is fair enough in the case of Super, more specifically the anime. Saying it was “too reliant” may be excessive, but there’s no doubt that, at times, they re-used fan-favorite moments basically beat to beat - to the detriment of said moments AND of the new moments.
The movies written by Toriyama have some fanservice (not excessive, and tastefully done), and have no nostalgic moments.
The manga only referenced the old work every once and then, for nostalgia, in a few panels. It has some fanservice, as the anime does, but both continuties don’t rely on it.

3. Characters in stasis, or regressed:
This is true for most characters. It’s not for new ones, or for 17. Goku has always been a pretty static character, and Vegeta is subtly developing in Super even though at times his development gets regressed for no reason at all.
The issue Super has is mostly that it flanderizes some character traits.

4. Character journeys were completed:
The journeys of the characters were mostly completed by the end of the 23rd Budokai Tenkaichi too, though. Apart from Krillin who still had to marry. Then later the manga introduced new characters to develop such as Vegeta and Gohan, and developed Piccolo. But others like Bulma, Tenshinan, Kamesennin, Chaozu and Yamcha were all fully developed characters which had already gone through their respective journeys - they have been static ever since their journeys were over.
Super’s not that different from Z in that regard. It has introduced new characters to develop, and has mostly discarded the already developed characters. But those still appear every once and then, as they did in Z.
Maybe the complain is that, due to his popularity, they kept Vegeta as a main character and are trying to squeeze some more development out of him. That’s probably the only issue.
They have also tried to develop Roshi, Krillin and Gohan a little more. And frankly I didn’t mind that.

[ABED]

1. The magic is gone:
This is the classic phrase people say. It has no meaning, and is highly subjective.

It has meaning. It's purposefully nebulous and vague. When any piece of art works, it's a combination or right people, right place, right time, and numerous other factors that you can't manufacture. It's hard to put into words or even understand exactly why things work well the way they do. Why do some writers have a few years where they are on fire and everything seems to work and yet a few years later, things don't work so well despite so many of the same factors remaining consistent? And of course it's highly subjective. I never said otherwise.

To give a specific example, WWF attitude era was a very creative and financially successful time for not just the WWF, but wrestling as a whole. It was a combination of so many factors and the planets all aligning at the right time. Wrestling wasn't as overexposed, Vince McMahon was the perfect antagonist to the rebel Stone Cold. He was coming off of an incident that created a genuine hatred with the audience, and the bad guy owner was not overdone. Then the rest of the roster had years of experience, and were given creative freedom. It was also the era of crash TV. You won't ever have these factors happen again, and the WWF tried to keep this same dynamic (for lack of a better word) going, but it was never as effective as it was from 1997 through early 2001. Sometimes things just run their course.

[emperior]

1. The magic is gone:
This is the classic phrase people say. It has no meaning, and is highly subjective.

It has meaning. It's purposefully nebulous and vague. When any piece of art works, it's a combination or right people, right place, right time, and numerous other factors that you can't manufacture. It's hard to put into words or even understand exactly why things work well the way they do. Why do some writers have a few years where they are on fire and everything seems to work and yet a few years later, things don't work so well despite so many of the same factors remaining consistent? And of course it's highly subjective. I never said otherwise.

I was mostly addressing this common criticism (not specifically yours).
I don’t think it’s valid at all, because people change and so do their tastes. In fact there actually exist fans who may prefer Super to the old material, and maybe those are mostly fans Kai brought in. While older ones will probably stick to their preference of the old work.