What is your opinion about the artistic style of Dragon Ball Super?

[Baggie_Saiyan]

In DBZ, Goku used Super Saiyan Kaioken vs Paikuhan, and well.. he only had the Kaioken aura.



SSBKK stacking multiple auras on each other is just fanservice, but it's hard to stare at it without it hurting your eyes.

I think SSGSSKK was actually fine. You could at least see Goku! Evolution Vegeta aura was the definition of stupid. I will probably never rewatch any of the Evolution Vegeta fights again in my life.

[jaisonas]

With the exception of Takahashi episodes and a few other ones around that time, generally i'd like to forget it exists.

[funrush]

The artstyle itself is fine, although the animation quality was shoddy a lot of the time. I think the crazy effects and attacks fit how crazy unbelievable strong everyone is now.

As far as good artstyle though, the Broly film was excellent. I wish Dragon Ball was animated like that from now on.

[SpiritBombTriumphant]

I only wish that Super didn't change art styles in episode 77. It should have stayed the same the entire way through whether it's pre-77 or post-76's style. The change bothers me, although consistency is one thing this series has never had thanks to the morons in charge of it domestic and abroad.

[Rory]

As a fan of the series for over 20 years, Super is depressing to look at. Bland character designs and oversaturated colours combined with that lack of grit that comes with the digital age of anime, leads to one of the most visually painful anime experiences I forced myself through. That isn't even taking into consideration the animation, which as everyone on here knows, is bad enough without being coupled with Yamamuro's animation-resistant designs. It's the worst the series has ever looked. I don't think the series ever really looks great, even when it looks technically good it just feels like it's trying to copy what came before (certain scenes in the ToP are just about recreating a certain period of the Dragon Ball Z aesthetic, instead of creating a new identity). It really is the worst case scenario for me.

Great animation and art in service of a boring story is meaningless. Questionable art in an enjoyable story is tolerable.

I think I'm kind of the opposite of this. Animation and art hold as much meaning to me as the story, likely more because it's specifically a visual (in this case an animated visual) medium. When I realised this was how Dragon Ball Super looked, my standards for the show dropped like a rock and I was begrudgingly watching from very early on.
I don't think Broly was great as a story, even by Dragon Ball standards if I just look at the script I think it's pretty bland, but it was just so expressive and filled with energy that it's one of my favourite things to come from the series in a long, long time.

[ABED]

As a fan of the series for over 20 years, Super is depressing to look at. Bland character designs and oversaturated colours combined with that lack of grit that comes with the digital age of anime, leads to one of the most visually painful anime experiences I forced myself through. That isn't even taking into consideration the animation, which as everyone on here knows, is bad enough without being coupled with Yamamuro's animation-resistant designs. It's the worst the series has ever looked. I don't think the series ever really looks great, even when it looks technically good it just feels like it's trying to copy what came before (certain scenes in the ToP are just about recreating a certain period of the Dragon Ball Z aesthetic, instead of creating a new identity). It really is the worst case scenario for me.

Great animation and art in service of a boring story is meaningless. Questionable art in an enjoyable story is tolerable.

I think I'm kind of the opposite of this. Animation and art hold as much meaning to me as the story, likely more because it's specifically a visual (in this case an animated visual) medium. When I realised this was how Dragon Ball Super looked, my standards for the show dropped like a rock and I was begrudgingly watching from very early on.
I don't think Broly was great as a story, even by Dragon Ball standards if I just look at the script I think it's pretty bland, but it was just so expressive and filled with energy that it's one of my favourite things to come from the series in a long, long time.

That's not at all what being a visual medium means. It doesn't mean it's about having pretty pictures. It means you can convey the story using visuals. It's visual STORYTELLING, not VISUAL storytelling.

Second, the visuals in the films are so overblown by fans. They're merely fine.

[8000 Saiyan]

For the most part of the series, it's pretty bad, but it improved a great deal with Takahashi and Shida on board.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

Second, the visuals in the films are so overblown by fans. They're merely fine.

When compared to everything else DB anime related that has been produced, specially fight scenes, DBS:B movie is way above them all and in a league of its own.

[ABED]

Second, the visuals in the films are so overblown by fans. They're merely fine.

When compared to everything else DB anime related that has been produced, specially fight scenes, DBS:B movie is way above them all and in a league of its own.

It may just be from an animation and art perspective, but it's hardly some huge deal. It's not. It's a film so already it's an unfair comparison. The fighting in the film is nowhere near as good as people make it out to be. It's nothing to write home about. It's a lot of yelling, transformations, yelling, getting hit into mountains, yelling, and wait for it... yelling. It's not particularly well choreographed or clever or filled with interesting character beets. It's filled with fanservice and yelling. The fight scenes in the series were pretty much all better than that one, with the sole exception of the Golden Freeza arc.

[WittyUsername]

DBSB looks a lot better than BoG and RF, the latter two of which Super tried to mimic.

[Rory]

That's not at all what being a visual medium means. It doesn't mean it's about having pretty pictures. It means you can convey the story using visuals. It's visual STORYTELLING, not VISUAL storytelling.

A visual medium is communicating via visuals. Whether more meaning is found in the visuals or what they're intended to tell is up to the individual (or hell, the artist). In the same way I tend to have little time for listening to a concept album for its story if the quality of the work is subpar, I tend to not be too interested in a movie if the only good thing it has going for it is there story (there are of course exceptions, but it has to be a good story).

Second, the visuals in the films are so overblown by fans. They're merely fine.

I accept that what I'm about to say is dismissive and frankly poor form, but I just can't take that seriously, and I'm not really interested in extended quote trains where neither of us change out minds by the end. Just gonna agree to disagree.

[Psajdak]

DBS: Broly movie definitely looks as future of DB, but to be honest, for anime series animated by Toei, DBS series wasn't that bad looking during ToP arc.

[ABED]

That's not at all what being a visual medium means. It doesn't mean it's about having pretty pictures. It means you can convey the story using visuals. It's visual STORYTELLING, not VISUAL storytelling.

A visual medium is communicating via visuals. Whether more meaning is found in the visuals or what they're intended to tell is up to the individual (or hell, the artist). In the same way I tend to have little time for listening to a concept album for its story if the quality of the work is subpar, I tend to not be too interested in a movie if the only good thing it has going for it is there story (there are of course exceptions, but it has to be a good story).

Second, the visuals in the films are so overblown by fans. They're merely fine.

I accept that what I'm about to say is dismissive and frankly poor form, but I just can't take that seriously, and I'm not really interested in extended quote trains where neither of us change out minds by the end. Just gonna agree to disagree.

Bad comparison to a concept album. Music isn't about the story. They can tell story but that's a completely different artform. TV and Film are storytelling mediums. The meaning is in the story which is conveyed through visuals. Visuals disconnected from a compelling story aren't that compelling.

Yes, visuals media communicates through visuals, but what is it communicating beside STORY?

What's so damn meaninful about a well animated movie about characters in a conflict you don't care about and doing something as banal as fighting? What in and of itself is so great about those visuals in and of themselves?

Fine you don't take that serious, but I honestly can take the idea serious that visuals are more important than the story. There's no way that's true. Yes, film is a visual medium, but it's a visual STORYTELLING medium. A string of images thrown together absent anything meaningful is empty. There's little to get from it other than "that's kinda nice".

[Rory]

I'm going to respond with a few points, then stop replying, because I see this getting old fast.
Firstly, I feel like you've taken my viewpoint to an extreme and created a strawman out of it. My viewpoint (which I'll remind you, is mine, at no point did I even remotely imply you were in any way wrong, just that I felt differently) is that visuals matter to me just as much or more than the story being told. Not that I don't care about the story and only like "pretty pictures" (thanks for the condescension, by the way), just that the way it's presented (when communicated visually) is of extreme importance to me. One of my favourite movies is The Holy Mountain. If I sat next to someone who cared more about story than the visuals, chances are they wouldn't really like The Holy Mountain very much. I however, think The Holy Mountain is a masterpiece. I've sat next to so many people while watching Eraserhead who turn to me and ask what the hell is going on, while for me, the presentation is key. I do care about story, I just care about the presentation more (and I don't even want to get into the topic of how presentation can be seen as story).

You say you can't see how someone caring more about the visuals than the story being possible... try. Genuinely try. People approach expressions of art/entertainment from so many different places, the last thing you should expect is to everyone to have the same values.

Sorry for being so off topic OP, I won't derail any further!

[JulieYBM]

Broli succeeds in its visuals and sound. I myself would certainly like more story but the film is a superb film because of its rich visuals. The character acting sells Gokuu's excitement, Broli's agony (gosh, he's in so much agony during the fight) and Freeza's playfulness super well. Vegeta gets the short end of the stick thanks to Takahashi overseeing his major scenes but otherwise the film is about the joy of animation.

Also, damn do I wish I looked like Cheelai. So smol and cute.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

Also, damn do I wish I looked like Cheelai. So smol and cute.

She is an absolutely adorable little snacc and Broli is frickin' lucky as sin.

That's the real benefit to sad backstories; the hot alien at the end of the tunnel.

[ABED]

What makes you think I haven't tried. I've tried, and the static image gets boring after a while. The combination of the image and a narrative is interesting. Like at least with a static painting, everything the artist is saying is being conveyed in that one image. Moving images disconnected from compelling stories aren't like an individual painting. It's by definition incomplete.

I get what you're saying now, but I don't think you get what I'm saying, in a visual storytelling medium, you tell the story using the pictures instead of just using dialog. You tell a story through action. Unlike a play where by its nature is more dialog driven, movies can convey emotions like sadness by pointing the camera at an actor's face and we see them emote. We don't need a monologue of an actor saying they're sad, we see them be sad. And I like when the story is clear and trusts the audience enough to get what's going on without having the actors say exactly what they're thinking. It's great visual storytelling. With Broly, all it has is some fights, and they're boring fights. The characters are cardboard, it's full of fanservice, and the conflict feels stock, as opposed to compelling and organic. The visuals themselves aren't nearly as impressive because it's nicely animated but doesn't convey a compelling story.

Not that I don't care about the story and only like "pretty pictures" (thanks for the condescension, by the way)

Sorry, that's a bit of projection. I've had far too many discussions with people who took one college film course, if that, and go on and on about cinematography without really understanding what it is. It literally all boils down to how the pictures look. Hell, someone on twitter was schooled by filmmakers because he/she thought she knew more about cinematography than people in the business and took a static frame from Endgame out of context and foolishly went on and on about how the scene where Cap catches mjolnir was bad composition. Point being, from what I read, and I did actually read your posts, I didn't skim over them, it felt as though you were talking about visuals disconnected from narrative.

[JulieYBM]

Also, damn do I wish I looked like Cheelai. So smol and cute.

She is an absolutely adorable little snacc and Broli is frickin' lucky as sin.

That's the real benefit to sad backstories; the hot alien at the end of the tunnel.

ShindoL and Scarz (FunSexyDB) have both written some really nice comics about them (also love having physical copies of those books). I think they've really got a nice combination of personalities that makes you want to see them interact more. It's a nice take on the character dynamic. While Cheelai might be a sort of Blooma figure Broli is far too reserved and gentle to really fire back smack against her. I want to see them in all sorts of situations where we can see Broli both protected and then protect her when she gets too in over her head.