Endings

[MasenkoHA]

. But yes, the first arc, the one that was meant to bring back the tone and style of the original DB was similar in tone and style of the original Dragon Ball. That's not a flaw, that's a feature, as you put it. That still doesn't tell me how the Shadow Dragons arc is derivative.

This isn't even specifically aimed at you but I always hated when people say "The Black Star Dragon Ball arc was meant to bring back the tone of the original Dragon Ball" and no? I mean Goku's a kid again and it's clearly a rehash of the very first arc (and only the very first arc) but IN SPAAAAAACE with Z level high stakes. There's nothing about it that feels like Dragon Ball after the first 13 episodes. But hey for some reason those first 13 episodes are how people view original Dragon Ball as a whole so shrug.

At this point in time, Dragon Ball is a for profit franchise, not a singular artist's work of art. It hasn't been that in years and they're actively taking steps to move it to the next stage.

The fact that Toriyama is still involved with Super's production says otherwise. That's hardly "actively taking steps to move it to the next stage"

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

Growth of the FRANCHISE is different from growth of a character... No matter how much you want to say otherwise, Goku's presence isn't necessary for a story in the Dragon Ball FRANCHISE.

On an artistic level the GT movie A Hero's Legacy did a pretty good job of proving other protagonists can carry their own story. So it's not as if TOEI can't tell worthwhile stories where Goku isn't the main character. They just haven't because the last time they tried this audience response was tepid.

[ABED]

Growth of the FRANCHISE is different from growth of a character... No matter how much you want to say otherwise, Goku's presence isn't necessary for a story in the Dragon Ball FRANCHISE.

On an artistic level the GT movie A Hero's Legacy did a pretty good job of proving other protagonists can carry their own story. So it's not as if TOEI can't tell worthwhile stories where Goku isn't the main character. They just haven't because the last time they tried this audience response was tepid.

It doesn't. It was a 40 minute one off. That is not remotely the same as saying another character can carry the entire franchise. But if we're being honest that film is pretty boring.

[Robo4900]

Growth of the FRANCHISE is different from growth of a character... No matter how much you want to say otherwise, Goku's presence isn't necessary for a story in the Dragon Ball FRANCHISE.

On an artistic level the GT movie A Hero's Legacy did a pretty good job of proving other protagonists can carry their own story. So it's not as if TOEI can't tell worthwhile stories where Goku isn't the main character. They just haven't because the last time they tried this audience response was tepid.

It doesn't. It was a 40 minute one off. That is not remotely the same as saying another character can carry the entire franchise. But if we're being honest that film is pretty boring.

You do realise you're literally refuting "Here's an example we've all seen of different characters moving the franchise forward" with "It doesn't count because they only did it once!"

Just because it was only done in one 40-minute special doesn't mean it was never going to work. And generally, that special is reasonably well-regarded.

The plan to eradicate the Saiyans having a villain who has ties to Tsufuruians and wants revenge is HARDLY what anyone should call surface level [...] The details are different but their motives are very specifically the same.

"This villain, just like that other one, wants revenge because his people were wiped out."
Yes, that is surface-level. It's the worldbuilding backstory justification behind having this villain involved.

Baby as a character? His plan? The way he goes about it?
These aren't insignificant details, these are the defining parts.

If we look at it how you're looking at it, Freeza, Pilaf, and Piccolo are the same villain; they're all fundamentally evil despots who want to rule the world. Freeza and Piccolo specifically want to become immortal and destroy it at some point.
The details are different, but their motives are very specifically the same.

but thanks for being sooooo condescending. You're sooooo helpful.

Happy to oblige.

By the way, I also pointed out the first arc was intentionally similar to DB's very first arc down to having one episode being a throwback to a specific episode from the first series

Sure.

Several of the first 14 episodes are very much a throwback to early DB. This is known. It's one of the reasons those episodes are the shitty ones that GT goes through before it finds its niche. Those episodes are horrendously derivative, and the fact these shitty episodes came so early in its run certainly didn't help the show's chances.

Ideas don't really matter. As JR put it, potential don't pay the bills. I'm well aware of what execution is, so thank you for explaining something that didn't need explaining. Anyone can throw out ideas that sound good, but they don't amount to much if you can't execute.

This is true, though if you're working off a stupid idea with no potential, you kinda get what you pay for.

... *side-eyes Evil Goku vs Future Trunks, the entire concept of Geran, the repeated revivals of Freeza for no reason, etc. etc.*

[Zeon_Grunt]

The fact that Toriyama is still involved with Super's production says otherwise. That's hardly "actively taking steps to move it to the next stage"

Providing notes with ideas on them and telling the company to expand from there and grooming a successor to carry on the manga side of the franchise absolutely send the message that he's taking steps to send Dragon Ball in that direction.

[ABED]

The point of the one off wasn't about moving forward, it was a fun flash forward to show that Goku's spirit lives on. My argument is a little more nuanced than "it doesn't count because they only did it once". It's effectively a short story. Goku Jr. gets a complete arc in a short movie. A franchise requires the ability to carry many stories for a lot longer. Goku Jr. doesn't even do that.

It's not merely that the two villains want revenge, it's the specificity of them both being Tusufurian. Hell, I'm not even against the idea. I think it was pretty smart to take a seed they planted earlier and paid it off in GT even though it wasn't intentionally planted with this in mind. I like when writers do this. But regardless of me liking that fact, it's still derivative. Another Tsufurian plots revenge against the Saiyans.

This is true, though if you're working off a stupid idea with no potential, you kinda get what you pay for.

It's not the idea that's the problem. Hell, a great writer can turn an awful sounding idea into something great, like The Lego Movie or The King's Speech.

the entire concept of Geran,

I don't know what you mean by this.

[Zeon_Grunt]

A franchise requires the ability to carry many stories for a lot longer.

Did you really just say this after arguing to the teeth with me in the other thread that Dragon Ball as a franchise shouldn't change to tell different types of stories if it wants to continue on indefinitely?

[Robo4900]

The point of the one off wasn't about moving forward, it was a fun flash forward to show that Goku's spirit lives on. My argument is a little more nuanced than "it doesn't count because they only did it once". It's effectively a short story. Goku Jr. gets a complete arc in a short movie. A franchise requires the ability to carry many stories for a lot longer. Goku Jr. doesn't even do that.

There's no reason one couldn't see that story as being a backdoor pilot for an ongoing series, or otherwise a template for a similar kind of story to be told around other characters.
Just because the character has undergone an arc in a short movie doesn't mean the character has no room to grow ever again, or that all possibilities with them, their friends, and their world have been exhausted.

Perhaps it was just meant as a one-off flash-forward... Or maybe we'd have seen more of it if GT had continued... Or maybe it would've got its own series if it proved significantly more popular than GT itself...
Whatever the case, I don't think it's as much a throwaway as you're calling it.

It's not the idea that's the problem. Hell, a great writer can turn an awful sounding idea into something great, like The Lego Movie or The King's Speech.

Fair. Only if they have a really cracking vision for it, though. Toriyama hasn't exactly had much in the way of vision since the '90s.

the entire concept of Geran,

I don't know what you mean by this.

Geran is an alternative romanisation of "Jiren". Arguably far more correct, as his name is supposed to be a pun on "Range". I prefer to use this alternate spelling for much the same reasons as I tend to prefer using names from the official subtitles.

[ABED]

A franchise requires the ability to carry many stories for a lot longer.

Did you really just say this after arguing to the teeth with me in the other thread that Dragon Ball as a franchise shouldn't change to tell different types of stories if it wants to continue on indefinitely?

I have NO idea what you're getting at. I meant that for a movie, a character has to hold the audience's attention for a short while. A series requires a character the audience wants to stay with for hours upon hours. I like the Trunks and Bardock TV specials, but they serve their purpose and I don't think their quality proves those stories are worth exploring more than they were. Stories shorter stories work in large part due to their brevity

Geran is an alternative romanisation of "Jiren". Arguably far more correct, as his name is supposed to be a pun on "Range". I prefer to use the alternate spelling.

I get that, but I dont' know what you mean by him being a bad concept.

There's no reason one couldn't see that story as being a pilot for an ongoing series

I guess they could, but there's no point to it.

[WittyUsername]

On the subject of Goku Jr., there was a time when I wondered what a series with him, Vegeta Jr. and Puck as the main characters would be like.

[Robo4900]

On the subject of Goku Jr., there was a time when I wondered what a series with him, Vegeta Jr. and Puck as the main characters would be like.

I still wonder that.
I'd love it if Shueisha/Dragon Ball Room did a spinoff manga about it. Could be a fun ride, with the right author behind it.

I get that, but I dont' know what you mean by him being a bad concept.

He has no personality, and his backstory is a dull cliché.
At least Black/Zamas had some personality, some charisma... Geran is just another wall for Goku to punch really hard. His strength, and the flashy fight scenes he has with Goku, are the only reasons he's memorable.

Essentially, he just screams to me that "A strong guy to be Goku's rival in this tournament" was in Toriyama's head for the outline for the arc, but rather than fill it with a character, he filled it with a visual design and a hastily-written backstory. There's no character there.

I guess they could, but there's no point to it.

It's a way of continuing Dragon Ball without having to return to the well of "a new threat stronger than Goku and Vegeta shows up and beats them, so they get stronger and beat him." (And it is always a him, of course)

New characters, a vastly differernt world setup, different kinds of stories can be told, etc.
And of course, the power level can get a reset so it becomes easier to write credible threats and allies.

[Zeon_Grunt]

I have NO idea what you're getting at. I meant that for a movie, a character has to hold the audience's attention for a short while. A series requires a character the audience wants to stay with for hours upon hours. I like the Trunks and Bardock TV specials, but they serve their purpose and I don't think their quality proves those stories are worth exploring more than they were. Stories shorter stories work in large part due to their brevity

I'm getting at the fact that our whole argument in the Broly thread stems from me saying that if the Dragon Ball franchise is to continue on indefinitely, it has to grow and expand beyond just telling Goku's story and you disagreeing that it should ever change at all and claiming that wanting it to do so is nothing but entitlement and immaturity.

Then you turn around in this thread and explicitly state that a franchise can't properly continue if it can't explore more stories. That's what I'm getting at.

And when are you going to get your head out of your ass and realize that what does and does not interest you personally has no sway over what is inherently a good idea or concept to explore? Just because you don't like the idea of exploring a certain story within Dragon Ball that isn't Goku's, doesn't mean no one else is or that it's a bad idea to even consider doing it.

If you want the franchise to stay in a form of stasis forever, so be it, but not all of us do and we're not wrong or immature for having different desires for the future of the franchise.

[ABED]

He has no personality, and his backstory is a dull cliché.

I get that, but he's a walking force of nature that doesn't seem to care about much beyond getting stronger. Not everyone needs a great backstory or much of a personality. He's not as great as Ivan Drago, but the principle is the same. In Rocky 4, he doesn't have much beyond being imposing. He wasn't angry, he doesn't show much emotion. He doesn't have a sad backstory that hinted at much less shown. He's carried by Dolph Lundgren's presence. If I got in the ring with the guy, even if I were a talented boxer, I'd be scared. Frankly, that's enough sometimes. Jiren operates the same way. He's a force of nature for Goku to try to overcome and thankfully the fights are good so it works. I'd be much more inclined to agree had those fights not worked as well as they did Of course, your mileage may vary.

New characters, a vastly differernt world setup, different kinds of stories can be told, etc.
And of course, the power level can get a reset so it becomes easier to write credible threats and allies.

If it were that new and different, why not create a brand new series?

Then you turn around in this thread and explicitly state that a franchise can't properly continue if it can't explore more stories.

WHAT? You got that from what I wrote?

[Zeon_Grunt]

WHAT? You got that from what I wrote?

Directly where I quoted you to begin with. You straight up said

A franchise requires the ability to carry many stories for a lot longer.

Dragon Ball is a franchise, and thus in it's attempts to be an indefinitely continuing franchise must "require the ability to carry many stories." That's the whole crux of my whole stance in the other thread.

[Robo4900]

I get that, but he's a walking force of nature that doesn't seem to care about much beyond getting stronger.

Yes. That's why he's dull.

Not everyone needs a great backstory or much of a personality. He's not as great as Ivan Drago, but the principle is the same. In Rocky 4, he doesn't have much beyond being imposing. He wasn't angry, he doesn't show much emotion. He doesn't have a sad backstory that hinted at much less shown. He's carried by Dolph Lundgren's presence. If I got in the ring with the guy, even if I were a talented boxer, I'd be scared. Frankly, that's enough sometimes. Jiren operates the same way. He's a force of nature for Goku to try to overcome and thankfully the fights are good so it works. I'd be much more inclined to agree had those fights not worked as well as they did Of course, your mileage may vary.

Except Geran isn't scary, and his performance isn't anything to write home about. He's totally bland and unremarkable.

If it were that new and different, why not create a brand new series?

The same reasons none of the separate stories in Dragon Ball, Z, GT, Super, or any of the movies aren't a brand new series/movie of their own.

[ABED]

WHAT? You got that from what I wrote?

Directly where I quoted you to begin with. You straight up said

A franchise requires the ability to carry many stories for a lot longer.

Dragon Ball is a franchise, and thus in it's attempts to be an indefinitely continuing franchise must "require the ability to carry many stories." That's the whole crux of my whole stance in the other thread.

My bad for not being clearer apparently. I mean that if a story is going to go beyond a single short film, the main character(s) have to be interesting enough to follow for more than one short film with a complete arc. Goku can carry an entire franchise. I wasn't suggesting DB continue or have spin off, just that it's easier to hold and audience's attention a one off than it is a long form story. I love Ferris Beuller but that character and that film can't carry an entire series. It would become grating after a while. It works as a self contained story. And I wrote "many stories" not many series, as in many story arcs and episodes.

Except Geran isn't scary,

I found him imposing.

the same reasons none of the separate stories in Dragon Ball, Z, GT, Super, or any of the movies aren't a brand new series/movie of their own.

Huh? You say that as if I know what you mean.

[Zeon_Grunt]

My bad for not being clearer apparently. I mean that if a story is going to go beyond a single short film, the main character(s) have to be interesting enough to follow for more than one short film with a complete arc. Goku can carry an entire franchise. I wasn't suggesting DB continue or have spin off, just that it's easier to hold and audience's attention a one off than it is a long form story. I love Ferris Beuller but that character and that film can't carry an entire series. It would become grating after a while. It works as a self contained story.

Right, but your intent doesn't change the fact that you acknowledged that a franchise can't just tell the same story forever.

You don't know if Goku Jr can carry on the franchise because they never tried to continue his story. You can't just say "well, this character was the main character for X many years, therefore they're the only one who can carry a series of their own in this universe."

Ferris Beuller is and always has been a one off movie, not a franchise. If they wanted to make it one, they could have, but they didn't and we don't know how successful or unsuccessful such a franchise would have been. That's wholly different from Dragon Ball, which is a franchise and will forever be one.

[Robo4900]

the same reasons none of the separate stories in Dragon Ball, Z, GT, Super, or any of the movies aren't a brand new series/movie of their own.

Huh? You say that as if I know what you mean.

It explicitly builds off Dragon Ball in its world, style, and characters. It could, in theory, with a lot of work, be severed from its source, but why do that?

[ABED]

My bad for not being clearer apparently. I mean that if a story is going to go beyond a single short film, the main character(s) have to be interesting enough to follow for more than one short film with a complete arc. Goku can carry an entire franchise. I wasn't suggesting DB continue or have spin off, just that it's easier to hold and audience's attention a one off than it is a long form story. I love Ferris Beuller but that character and that film can't carry an entire series. It would become grating after a while. It works as a self contained story.

Right, but your intent doesn't change the fact that you acknowledged that a franchise can't just tell the same story forever.

You don't know if Goku Jr can carry on the franchise because they never tried to continue his story. You can't just say "well, this character was the main character for X many years, therefore they're the only one who can carry a series of their own in this universe."

Ferris Beuller is and always has been a one off movie, not a franchise. If they wanted to make it one, they could have, but they didn't and we don't know how successful or unsuccessful such a franchise would have been. That's wholly different from Dragon Ball, which is a franchise and will forever be one.

That's not what it means.

They made a Ferris Beuller TV show in the 90s. Jennifer Aniston played Jeanie. It sucked.

It explicitly builds off Dragon Ball in its world, style, and characters. It could, in theory, with a lot of work, be severed from its source, but why do that?

But it's so different why not sever the ties and do something original? At that point, DB is just marketing and a cynical cash grab. And GT's style and world are very different than Toriyama's.

[Zeon_Grunt]

That's not what it means.

They made a Ferris Beuller TV show in the 90s. Jennifer Aniston played Jeanie. It sucked.

It explicitly builds off Dragon Ball in its world, style, and characters. It could, in theory, with a lot of work, be severed from its source, but why do that?

But it's so different why not sever the ties and do something original? At that point, DB is just marketing and a cynical cash grab. And GT's style and world are very different than Toriyama's.

Regardless of whether you meant it in relation to our previous arguments or not, it doesn't change that you straight up said that a franchise that can't tell different types of stories, can't still be expected to continue on. (in DB's case, it's supposed to go on forever or until people stop buying the merch at this point)

Yes, it was bad because the writing was bad. You can't say "see, people aren't interested in stories in this universe because the TV show failed," if the TV show failed, not because no one was interested in the concept (ratings for the show were initially high), but because the writing was terrible. The quality of the writing is the sole factor in whether anyone keeps watching a show or not. Simply being attached to an IP they liked isn't enough to keep people tuning in. That's the main problem with a lot of spin-offs and sequels is that the company behind them rarely makes sure the writing is anywhere close to as good or entertaining as the original (which isn't impossible as shows like Arrow, JAG, Cheers, and Law & Order have all successfully spun-off into other shows that take place in the same universe).