Dragon Ball Lore

[ABED]

There's absolutely no reason for Raditz or literally anyone from them Freeza Force to ever come to Earth if Goku wasn't a Saiyan. Earth is regarded as backword low-resources planet by the standards of the empire (this was stated a couple of times in Z and Super), and was largely ignored by Freeza before he met Goku.

Except that they did come to Earth in the first place. They saw it as a valuable enough planet to send someone to destroy it and get it ready for sale. And good lord, fi Goku isn't written to be a Saiyan then clearly you easily change it to them seeing more value in it. This is not that hard. That's an easy detail to change. The reason they were written to not see much value in Earth was a simple story justification for why they didn't arrive sooner. If he were sent to Earth as a baby, he needs to justify why they are waiting until he's a grown up.

Bebi, i"m having such a hard time understanding you.

I don't think large expanding universes need to spend so much time juggling their continuity as if that's the draw. DC and Marvel periodically reboot because supposedly they have these expansive continuitities that need to be streamlined when the irony is that they really don't and DC in particular never paid that much attention to it in the first place. It's baggage, but it's baggage of their own making.

Audiences don't really care that much about lore and canon. I think people think they are more important than they really are because they are tangible. It's a little bit harder to think in terms of things like theme and and dramatically satisfying set ups and payoffs as well as lightning in a bottle. Those are the things that really grab an audience. Continuity can be used in good and bad ways. Strict adherence to it for its own sake is bad, but using continuity for things like reinforcing a theme or paying attention to an old plot point or moment to organically pay it off later or even again is a great writing tactic.

[Sadala Elite]

but I can easily see a world where the Saiyans come to Earth without Goku having been one of them. Goku's story is that he was sent on a mission to destroy it when he was an infant. Take that part out and it still works, but instead of coming to get Goku, Raditz comes to destroy Earth himself. It would play out a little different but it's still logical and fits the motives of villains. They were always coming to Earth eventually.

If by Saiyans, you mean Saiyans as we know them, then I'm not sure how that would work without Goku's backstory. If you mean some other version of Saiyans that could have been invented by Toriyama, then sure. Saiyans could have been some humanoid reptilian dog creatures or something with the ability to turn into giant armadillos.

It would be odd if some random alien species Goku wasn't related to, also somehow had monkey-like tails with the same weakness, and the same ability to transform into a big monkey monster at the sight of a full-moon. And what of that of Super Saiyan? Obviously Goku could never be a Super Saiyan without first being a Saiyan. Vegeta's constant foreshadowing of the Super Saiyan now doesn't make sense. The only two choices now are, Goku himself has a unique golden haired transformation (that would have a different name), or the Super Saiyan transformation does exist and Goku could never be one. Or does he? Maybe he mimics it the same way he mimicked the Kamehameha? That would be odd, but I guess that could happen. Of course, in order to mimic it, that entails someone else becomes Super Saiyan first.

That said, I disagree that it would play out a "little different". It would be dramatically different.

The tail thing isn't really necessary. It doesn't fundamentally change who those characters are. So yes, there would clearly be changes to certain parts of the story, like Vegeta turning into a giant ape like Goku, but him transforming is very possible. Toriyama would end up using that device several more times. Bottom line, the idea of a race of planet pirates coming to destroy all Goku holds dear works regardless of his connection to them.


I didn't think through my point and wrote a "little" different, so I agree, that there would be a big change, but not for uninteresting reasons like tails and transformations. That's easy to write around. What would change is thematic. It's the elites vs. lower class theme in that arc. That would definitely be VASTLY different.

You just contradicted yourself lmao

- Vader was already given a backstory in just Episode 4 alone (Obi-Wan's former pupil turned evil), Episode 5 merely expanded on it. So your argument here is false.

Stop that shit right now. Instead of condescendingly laughing, how about we discuss this like civilized people? And by the way, I didn't say he had none, but being a former pupil is a VERY thin backstory. We don't know anything more about Darth other than that.

MJ has dozens of documentaries that center around exactly that lmao, another failed argument lol.

And what's the consensus about why he's competitive? What's their grand conclusion at the root of why he has an almost pathological need to compete? You haven't shown me that I've made a failed argument anyway. You've just said there are documentaries.

If you define "hero" as "protagonist" then that rule is actually true lol. Nearly every major antagonist in fiction tends to think and act like they are the center of the universe, and the major villains of DB are no exception.

To me, you sound like somebody desperate to defend bad/mediocre writing in the things you like, as if you can't view them objectively.

Center of the universe does not equal them thinking they are morally in the right. Lector doesn't believe he's doing the right thing.

To me you sound like someone who can't make a decent argument without talking down to someone because you aren't interested in listening. So hey, why not laugh. You laugh because it makes you feel superior.

What does that even mean to view art "objectively"?

- A thin backstory is still a backstory, its still following the rules of storytelling. You haven't debunked a thing a said.

- You said "nobody cares about why MJ is MJ", and then I pointed out the existence of numerous media that's centers around exactly that, debunking your claim.

- Nobody said a thing about being morally right (again, you misread my post). The "hero" by classical definition means "protagonist/main guy", not a "morally good person". And HL definitely does see himself as the center of reality.

- "To me you sound like someone who can't make a decent argument without talking down to someone because you aren't interested in listening. So hey, why not laugh. You laugh because it makes you feel superior."

Are you done projecting and actually try to debunk any arguments?

- "What does that even mean to view art "objectively"?"

Yes, it is possible to accurately measure the quality of something. To deny this is to deny the existence of quality.

[ABED]

- Nobody said a thing about being morally right (again, you misread my post). The "hero" by classical definition means "protagonist/main guy", not a "morally good person". And HL definitely does see himself as the center of reality.

This is wrong based on etymology alone. Heroes aren't just another term for main characters. It's a word meaning someone of great character, courage or ability. Hero and protagonist aren't synonyms.

debunking your claim.

You didn't debunk the claim. You just said there are a lot of documentaries about that subject. You don't say anything beyond that. What was their argument? Their conclusion? None of that.

Yes, it is possible to accurately measure the quality of something. To deny this is to deny the existence of quality.

How? How do you measure quality? I acknowledge the existence of the concept quality but you can't quantify it. It's personal taste.

[Sadala Elite]

There's absolutely no reason for Raditz or literally anyone from them Freeza Force to ever come to Earth if Goku wasn't a Saiyan. Earth is regarded as backword low-resources planet by the standards of the empire (this was stated a couple of times in Z and Super), and was largely ignored by Freeza before he met Goku.

Except that they did come to Earth in the first place. They saw it as a valuable enough planet to send someone to destroy it and get it ready for sale. And good lord, fi Goku isn't written to be a Saiyan then clearly you easily change it to them seeing more value in it. This is not that hard. That's an easy detail to change. The reason they were written to not see much value in Earth was a simple story justification for why they didn't arrive sooner. If he were sent to Earth as a baby, he needs to justify why they are waiting until he's a grown up.

Bebi, i"m having such a hard time understanding you.

Raditz flat-out stated that he came to Earth mainly to find Goku/Kakarot. He came of his own free will, he was not ordered too by anybody (neither was Vegeta & Nappa)

Low-level Saiyans are often sent to lesser value planets (which are usually ignored). That's the biggest reason why nobody from the Freeza force came sooner, they saw Earth as worthless.

If Goku wasn't a Saiyan then nobody from the Freeza Force would ever come to Earth. And it would make no sense for why, after all these decades, that nobody from the Freeza Force invaded Earth if it had any known value.

[Sadala Elite]

- Nobody said a thing about being morally right (again, you misread my post). The "hero" by classical definition means "protagonist/main guy", not a "morally good person". And HL definitely does see himself as the center of reality.

This is wrong based on etymology alone. Heroes aren't just another term for main characters. It's a word meaning someone of great character, courage or ability.

debunking your claim.

You didn't debunk the claim. You just said there are a lot of documentaries about that subject. You don't say anything beyond that. What was their argument? Their conclusion? None of that.

Yes, it is possible to accurately measure the quality of something. To deny this is to deny the existence of quality.

How? How do you measure quality? I acknowledge the existence of the concept quality but you can't quantify it. It's personal taste.

- Bro smh, you literally just said nobody cares why MJ is MJ, then I pointed out that there's lots of successful media that's about that. If you were right then that media wouldnt exist (logic).

- "Heroes aren't just another term for main characters. It's a word meaning someone of great character, courage or ability."

In other words, someone that's in some way cool or desirable (which is how the Ancient Greeks used it). It did not mean "morally good" by classical definition.

- If something exist, then it can be quantified.

[ABED]

You don't have to explain the plot to me. I get it, but for some reason you don't seem to understand that the ENTIRE reason they don't come to Earth prior to Goku reaching adulthood was because Toriyama had to explain why they weren't there sooner if Goku was sent as a baby which is a development he came up with years after he first started the writing DB. As an in story reason, it makes perfect sense, but it wasn't the starting point. If the Saiyans are still planet pirates in this hypothetial scenario, then clearly their view of Earth would change, but it doesn't radically affect the story. What does affect the nature of the story is the class warfare stuff. It's much stronger if Goku is in fact a Saiyan.

In other words, someone that's in some way cool or desirable (which is how the Ancient Greeks used it). It did not mean "morally good" by classical definition.

Except that it does by the classical definition. Moral character is desirable to the Greeks.

- If something exist, then it can be quantified.

No it can't. How pretty is Alison Brie? How do you objectively quantify attractiveness?

- Bro smh, you literally just said nobody cares why MJ is MJ, then I pointed out that there's lots of successful media that's about that. If you were right then that media wouldnt exist (logic).

And that's NOT what I wrote. I wrote "who knows why MJ is so competitive". The fact that there are so many docs apparently means there isn't a definitive answer, just conjecture. When I say "who cares" I mean it doesn't really matter which one of them are right. We know he is and that's what drove him to be as great as he is. Sorry that wasn't clear. Yes, I get that it's interesting to wonder what makes someone tick but regardless of the numerous root causes, he is who he is and that's why we took notice and why he mattered to so many. It's the same thing with characters. We didn't need to know why Freeza chose to be a bastard and rule over an empire or why he takes sick pleasure in hurting people or why he carries himself like a posh gentleman. It's not the why that made him an effective villain.

[MyVisionity]

How? How do you measure quality? I acknowledge the existence of the concept quality but you can't quantify it. It's personal taste.

You don't have to be able to quantify something in order to measure it or view it objectively. In the case of film and television, you can judge the quality of something based upon conventional standards that have been established over time. It may not be purely scientific, but it's not simply a matter of "personal taste".

[ABED]

How? How do you measure quality? I acknowledge the existence of the concept quality but you can't quantify it. It's personal taste.

You don't have to be able to quantify something in order to measure it or view it objectively. In the case of film and television, you can judge the quality of something based upon conventional standards that have been established over time. It may not be purely scientific, but it's not simply a matter of "personal taste".

How does that make it objective? How do you think those "conventional standards" are determined?

[MyVisionity]

You don't have to be able to quantify something in order to measure it or view it objectively. In the case of film and television, you can judge the quality of something based upon conventional standards that have been established over time. It may not be purely scientific, but it's not simply a matter of "personal taste".

How does that make it objective? How do you think those "conventional standards" are determined?

It's objective because you leave personal opinion out of it and instead look at the criteria for what makes a good or bad work. Or at least that's what a critic should be doing. And the audience should do it to the best of their abilities.

That's not to say that conventions are set in stone and shouldn't be challenged, just that it's not simply a subjective act to determine quality.

[ABED]

You don't have to be able to quantify something in order to measure it or view it objectively. In the case of film and television, you can judge the quality of something based upon conventional standards that have been established over time. It may not be purely scientific, but it's not simply a matter of "personal taste".

How does that make it objective? How do you think those "conventional standards" are determined?

It's objective because you leave personal opinion out of it and instead look at the criteria for what makes a good or bad work. Or at least that's what a critic should be doing. And the audience should do it to the best of their abilities.

That's not to say that conventions are set in stone and shouldn't be challenged, just that it's not simply a subjective act to determine quality.

You can't leave your personal opinion out of it. Some things aren't quantifiable. We don't find the same things attrative. And even if we could by some miracle agree on the criteria for what makes a work good or bad we won't agree about what weight to give those various criteria. They always bring with them their own areas of interest, expertise, views, experiences. A critic's job isn't about being "objective". It's simply about clear communication. They have opinions. They don't have to disociate themselves from their subjective points of view. What they can do is impart them clearly to the viewer and explain why they THINK a given piece of art does or doesn't work. That's not even their most important function, but that's a whole different discussion.

You still have yet to explain how you determine quality. What are the criteria of quality of a movie? How much weight do acting quality, cinematography, writing, editing, music, etc have in comparison to each other?

[Grimlock]

Since lore is capable of even making characters more interesting (see Dabura), the more of it, the better. Expanding and bringing in more information/tidbit (as long as it's interesting) is and will forever be welcome.

By today's standards, for example, not having things like Toriyama stating the movies take place in another dimension and games exploring it would be a nightmare. We would be stuck with this linear and boring storyline where we would depend solely on one medium to get other, out-of-safe-zone works. In other words, we would have to put up with tournaments, retellings and unnecessary characters returning, stuck in a bubble, not knowing/realizing we could have something more substantial.

In short, lore is of extreme importance and it should always be around, it can save a franchise from boredom and be a reason for it to keep going.

[ABED]

Since lore is capable of even making characters more interesting (see Dabura), the more of it, the better. Expanding and bringing in more information/tidbit (as long as it's interesting) is and will forever be welcome.

By today's standards, for example, not having things like Toriyama stating the movies take place in another dimension and games exploring it would be a nightmare. We would be stuck with this linear and boring storyline where we would depend solely on one medium to get other, out-of-safe-zone works. In other words, we would have to put up with tournaments, retellings and unnecessary characters returning, stuck in a bubble, not knowing/realizing we could have something more substantial.

In short, lore is of extreme importance and it should always be around, it can save a franchise from boredom and be a reason for it to keep going.

The story is boring because there's not enough information? What do you suggest? More guidebooks or in-story exposition? How does lore make the stories non-linear?

Why was Dabura more interesting because of lore?

What more substantial aspects are you talking about? How is that more interesting than a good story with characters developing, emotional resonance, external and internal conflict?

Lore is boring. It's just information and if you don't give a shit about the characters, more information won't change it. It doesn't follow that more is better. At a certain point, it's just adding to the word count.

[goku the krump dancer]

Even if we found out that Dabura was the 5th son of the 10th King of Hell and was planning to summon Toriyama's version of Yog-Sothoth, it wouldn't change the fact that Boo turned him into a Lorna Doone Cookie in the actual story.

People love Godzilla not because he was created by nuclear explosives but for how he acts among humans and monsters both benevolent and malevolent.

EDIT: Also I think series like Naruto have people overly concerned with character backgrounds because much of the major story lines in that show are told through multiple flash backs.

[ABED]

It doesn't follow that more information about a character or moment is better. There's power in mystery and even ambiguity.

Dabura being the King of the Demon Realm was a nice nugget, but beyond being an interesting morcel, what value does it really add in story? How does it have any discernible impact on the narrative?

[goku the krump dancer]

That is the beauty and the intent of the original Halloween 1978 film. It wasnt so much that there was a man in a mask was killing people, it was that he seemingly had no motive for doing so. It was 100% random and no one could figure him out, not even his personal psychiatrist when he was kid. He was so far removed from human that he just had to be clinically chalked up to just being pure evil which is an abstract concept in itself.

[ABED]

That is the beauty and the intent of the original Halloween 1978 film. It wasnt so much that there was a man in a mask was killing people, it was that he seemingly had no motive for doing so. It was 100% random and no one could figure him out, not even his personal psychiatrist when he was kid. He was so far removed from human that he just had to be clinically chalked up to just being pure evil which is an abstract concept in itself.

Great example!

[MyVisionity]

You can't leave your personal opinion out of it. Some things aren't quantifiable. We don't find the same things attrative. And even if we could by some miracle agree on the criteria for what makes a work good or bad we won't agree about what weight to give those various criteria. They always bring with them their own areas of interest, expertise, views, experiences. A critic's job isn't about being "objective". It's simply about clear communication. They have opinions. They don't have to disociate themselves from their subjective points of view. What they can do is impart them clearly to the viewer and explain why they THINK a given piece of art does or doesn't work. That's not even their most important function, but that's a whole different discussion.

We do and we don't find the same things attractive. That's not by chance, nor is it entirely subjective. I doubt it would take a miracle to agree on criteria of quality. Just time, effort, and communication.

Maybe a critic will include their personal opinions in an assessment, but ideally it will remain as objective as possible.

You still have yet to explain how you determine quality. What are the criteria of quality of a movie? How much weight do acting quality, cinematography, writing, editing, music, etc have in comparison to each other?

This is the kind of thing that a film scholar or movie critic should be able to answer. The average moviegoer can only rely on their instincts and their own research and experience. Someone with a professional or academic background in the field would have more concrete systems for determining quality.

[Melee_Sovereign]

People love Godzilla not because he was created by nuclear explosives but for how he acts among humans and monsters both benevolent and malevolent.

I have to slightly disagree with this. Godzilla's background with nuclear explosions was sort of an allegory to the fear of nuclear bombs back then. It added to his cultural relevance and mainstream appeal.

He's not the only fictional giant monster, but he's one of the most famous. One has to ask, if he had no background, and was just a giant monster, how popular would he be?

[LoganForkHands73]

Let's just say I've read a fair amount on this subject and the answer is... complex. When you're professionally criticising something, you're taking into account tonnes of different variables. You have to take into account the kind of audience you're writing for, the technical merits of work, etc., but at the end of the day, you're giving a professional opinion. It's never exactly objective, but it's possible to say "Well this film had admirable cinematography which would appeal to XYZ, but I feel it didn't work because XYZ". What's more important than anything is being able to create a tangible feel for the kind of film/game/whatever through precise vocabulary.

Critics are human at the end of the day. Even the pros like Ebert could be irrationally stubborn sometimes to justify his feelings on a film he didn't like, even if the film would be considered successful in many aspects. Dunkey actually had a great perspective on it, which was basically that every critic has their own niche that should inform how you accept their opinions. If you use Dunkey as an example, he hates JRPGs so he's not a great person to consult about that genre, but if he gives a good review to a new JRPG game, that can stand out all the more as either a sign that it really is that good... or maybe if it is for him, then it probably won't be for you.

[ABED]

And how would they know what quality is? What are the criteria?

We do and we don't find the same things attractive.

Ergo attractiveness is purely subjective.

Basically what I'm getting from this conversation is you have NO idea what constitutes quality, but you are still certain that it's objective. What do you take objective to mean?

Someone with a professional or academic background in the field would have more concrete systems for determining quality.
How are those systems concrete? You can't break any of this into quantifiable units. It's not like someone could say "the score was 'x units' of quality."

I have to slightly disagree with this. Godzilla's background with nuclear explosions was sort of an allegory to the fear of nuclear bombs back then. It added to his cultural relevance and mainstream appeal.

He's not the only fictional giant monster, but he's one of the most famous. One has to ask, if he had no background, and was just a giant monster, how popular would he be?

He'd still be pretty popular. The allegory is strong but much of godzilla's appeal comes from the same reason power rangers was popular - it's big monsters destroying shit. Also let's not forget that a big reason Godzilla was widely known in the west was because there were so many Godzilla movies on and for decades we just watched what was on TV. They were a cheap import. The thematic resonance has helped its staying power, but if the allegory isn't execute well, it's yet another case of good idea, poor execution.

LoganForkHands is spot on. I'll add to that by saying that it's possible to say there are specific aspects of quality you an disect and prove work or don't work well in the context of the story. For instance, whether a story is thematically confused.