Your ideal Dragon Ball sequel.

[Grimlock]

But if, as some people suggested, the sequel would introduce all new characters and just be set in the DB world, then it wouldn’t be “feel” like a sequel but a spin-off.

Dragon Ball Online is just as much a spin-off as it is a sequel to the manga. Now, whether these kind of works "feel like" something or not, I think it's entirely personal. I can understand if someone says that, for example, the said game doesn't feel like a sequel, due to it taking place so far in the future and removing almost all of the main characters, but to me personally, it is as much a sequel as Dragon Ball GT is and Dragon Ball Super is to Majin Buu saga. But a spin-off, nonetheless, as the focus is Trunks and time travel, not Goku and his adventure.

Since it's more a personal thing, I don't think we can reach a consensus about what a work "feels like", you know. But technically speaking, it doesn't really matter what we think, but what is intended to be, if Dragon Ball Online is intended to be a sequel, then a sequel it is. The very same goes to your Boruto example, if it is meant to be set after Naruto, it's outright a sequel.

[WittyUsername]

But they aren't finished. If they are teaching, their stories have progressed to a different stage and yet for some reason that's the time to change POV?

I’d argue that if Goku serves the role as a mentor, then that would mean that for all intents and purposes, his story from the original series has come to an end. The closest thing to an arc Goku ever had throughout the series was his constant desire to improve himself, which was why he’s had so many mentors over the course of the story. If Goku himself is the mentor now, that could essentially be viewed as a passing of the torch.

Hell, as big of a mess as the Star Wars ST ended up being, that’s basically what it did. The characters from the OT were still there, but they were no longer the focus, and for the first film in that trilogy, most people were fine with that. Granted, something like that would be a bit trickier for Dragon Ball, since, as emperior noted, the series generally follows an escalating power scale when it comes to the threat posed by the villains, but I don’t think it would be impossible.

But even as a mentor, that's still a new role and even mentors aren't perfect. Thing about human beings are we don't have all the answers, even our parents and teachers. We make it up as we go. That's fertile ground for a story about a mentor. It's a role that requires growth of its own.

Mentors are rarely the main protagonists of a story. If Goku were to fill the role of a mentor, that would essentially make his student the point of view character, since the student would be the one who would have to learn and grow. To bring up the Star Wars ST again, that’s what TLJ (divisive as it may be) did with Luke. He (kind of) served the role of the mentor figure, and even though he had his own little arc in the movie, the film as a whole wasn’t about him.

[ABED]

Toriyama may not had intended to tell the monomyth, but the narrative structure still follows the template of it very closely.

Because any story pretty much has the same fundamental structure - the set up, the complication, the payoff, and the denouement

It could be more than just one film. It could lead to some of best stories told out of the franchise. We just have wait and see how it pans out.

It won't because the franchise isn't 007, it's James Bond.

The magic orbs, the martial arts and heavy borrowing from Wuxia tropes and other kung-fu narratives is the shit that majorly composes Dragon Ball's DNA.

Sure, but they aren't the elements that differentiate it from other martial arts stories. Martial arts, mysticism, and magical orbs are all common and easily replicable. Let's take a different genre - mystery, for example. There are thousands of movies and TV shows about crime solvers, but it's the elements that differentiate each series from the other that are make those series what they are. It's Adrian Monk and his OCD that makes Monk what it is, it's the epic love story of Shawn and Gus that makes Psych what it is, it's the chemistry between Booth and Brennan that makes Bones what it is and not just another mystery series, along with the forensic anthropology, but that's easily replicable, the chemistry of the characters isn't. it's the intangibles that make any story what they are. Goku is a martial artist and it's a core part of his DNA, but it's Goku and his quirkiness and purity that make DB not just another martial arts series.

which I call out as bullshit because he does.

To which I call bullshit because no he doesn't. He's not fundamentally different from the guy he was in The Road Warrior. If three films have him go through the same arc, it's not an arc.

Your hypothetical situation isn't new at all either. Hell, it's even a sequel. Which was what the OP was inquiring about initially.

It is a sequel. It's a short sequel, but still a sequel. It follows the characters at the final point of their journey. I know it's not new at all, but at least it's closer in spirit to DB, and acknowledges the need to end.

He (kind of) served the role of the mentor figure, and even though he had his own little arc in the movie, the film as a whole wasn’t about him.

I would argue that TLJ is in fact about him. It's all about his journey And while you have a point that most stories aren't about the mentor, how many stories can you think of that followed the entire journey of a character from beginner with potential to expert to mentor? The stories you are talking about have the mentor character already at that point in their life. And my point was even the mentor has to learn and grow. They have some wisdom, but being able to teach that is a skill unto itself that not everyone possesses and those that do had to figure it out. Think about Vegeta as a mentor, he needs to learn when to offer assurance and when to reprimand someone. It helps reinforce the idea that you're never done learning.

[Lord Beerus]

Because any story pretty much has the same fundamental structure - the set up, the complication, the payoff, and the denouement

Which just proves Joseph Campbell point. All narrative have a similar foundation. What separates certain narratives from the rest is in the execution of it.

It won't because the franchise isn't 007, it's James Bond.

Again, it's an unproven concept. The least you can do is give it chance.

Sure, but they aren't the elements that differentiate it from other martial arts stories. Martial arts, mysticism, and magical orbs are all common and easily replicable. Let's take a different genre - mystery, for example. There are thousands of movies and TV shows about crime solvers, but it's the elements that differentiate each series from the other that are make those series what they are. It's Adrian Monk and his OCD that makes Monk what it is, it's the epic love story of Shawn and Gus that makes Psych what it is, it's the chemistry between Booth and Brennan that makes Bones what it is and not just another mystery series, along with the forensic anthropology, but that's easily replicable, the chemistry of the characters isn't. it's the intangibles that make any story what they are. Goku is a martial artist and it's a core part of his DNA, but it's Goku and his quirkiness and purity that make DB not just another martial arts series.

And all I'm saying is that the intriguing character aspects that made Goku, and Dragon Ball, stand out can be replicated or done even better. It doesn't come down to the character being just like Goku or Vegeta or Piccolo or Gohan for Dragon Ball to function. There are so many other ways you can tell a martial arts story in Dragon Ball without the characters needing to be clones of the previous cast.

To which I call bullshit because no he doesn't. He's not fundamentally different from the guy he was in The Road Warrior. If three films have him go through the same arc, it's not an arc.

But Fury Road doesn't take into consideration what happened in prior Mad Max films. Miller himself said that Fury Road was more of "revisiting" for the Mad Max films and that Fury Road was at best connected in spirit to the previous films, and at worst, loosely connected to the rest of the films. So even if his character arc is similar -- which is bizarre complaint to have as most positive character arc follow the same structure -- Max's character still develops Fury Road.

It is a sequel. It's a short sequel, but still a sequel. It follows the characters at the final point of their journey. I know it's not new at all, but at least it's closer in spirit to DB, and acknowledges the need to end.

But the journey of the original is already over. That's the thing. There's no room left for Goku to develop as a character. It would make more sense to view it as an epilogue than a sequel. And GT already fit the role of extended epilogue quite well as displaying why a narrative scenario like that can't work as sequel

[ABED]

Which just proves Joseph Campbell point. All narrative have a similar foundation. What separates certain narratives from the rest is in the execution of it.

That's one way to put it, but doesn't prove your point that DB is based in the Hero's Journey. All it proves is DB tells a story.

Again, it's an unproven concept. The least you can do is give it chance.

Not really since it's not a concept. The next Bond movie will be about Bond. And the one after that and the one after that. Besides, you still miss the point. 007 being a different character doesn't negate my actual point that despite changes to Bond's character, he's still fundamentally the same, just like Max is.

But Fury Road doesn't take into consideration what happened in prior Mad Max films. Miller himself said that Fury Road was more of "revisiting" for the Mad Max films and that Fury Road was at best connected in spirit to the previous films, and at worst, loosely connected to the rest of the films. So even if his character arc is similar -- which is bizarre complaint to have as most positive character arc follow the same structure -- Max's character still develops Fury Road.

That's such a ridiculous claim to make. Max gets a very similar arc in the previous two films, and it's not a retread of the previous films because they aren't in continuity? It's still not an arc as he's not changing. The core of the character is he's a reluctant hero. He'll always be that guy that wants to be left alone but helps out because he can't help it. No matter how the continuity gets futzed with, if he's telling the same arc, it's no longer an arc. It's pure laziness. What is it with you completely missing the damn point? I wasn't complaining that his arcs follow the same structure. I'm pointing out that after the same exact arc done three times, continuity reboot or not, it's not an arc anymore, that's just who the character is. He hasn't changed, and thus showing that change isn't a necessity of a good sequel. Althought I don't think Fury Road was a good movie, but his lack of an arc is the least of the film's problems.

And your scenario is just Super Sentai but in DB world. It's the same story, but slightly different characters and plot done over and over again.

[WittyUsername]

Of all the things to say about Mad Max: Fury Road, “lazy” is something I never would’ve imagined hearing.

[ABED]

Beerus, I find your constant statements to the effect of "you don't know, it hasn't been proven, but it could be better" to have no firm basis.

This isn't about something being better, which is a matter of opinion, it's a matter of something being what it is. There are lots of series better than DB, but if I'm in the mood for DB, I don't want it to be DB but better, I want Dragon Ball. I think most people get that even if on just a subconscious level.

[Lord Beerus]

That's one way to put it, but doesn't prove your point that DB is based in the Hero's Journey. All it proves is DB tells a story.

And the story that Dragon Ball tells (unintentionally) fits a lot of criteria that makes "The Hero's Journey".

Not really since it's not a concept. The next Bond movie will be about Bond. And the one after that and the one after that. Besides, you still miss the point. 007 being a different character doesn't negate my actual point that despite changes to Bond's character, he's still fundamentally the same, just like Max is.

How is not a concept? They are planning on having a new 007 that is NOT James Bond.

I don't even know why you brought James Bond up to begin with. It's easy for James Bond to have sequels because its not a ongoing series that relies on the cast going through significant development like Dragon Ball before reaching their logical conclusion. It's the story of James Bond. Dragon Ball just doesn't focus on only one person significantly. So it has the luxury of not having to rely solely on Goku alone for any new characters to go through development or for the plot to begin, progress or end. Which is why the James Bond films can have multiple sequel with different actors and a character that doesn't need to develop. Which is why I don't care for James Bond films to begin with beyond a superficial level.

That's such a ridiculous claim to make. Max gets a very similar arc in the previous two films, and it's not a retread of the previous films because they aren't in continuity? It's still not an arc as he's not changing. The core of the character is he's a reluctant hero. He'll always be that guy that wants to be left alone but helps out because he can't help it. No matter how the continuity gets futzed with, if he's telling the same arc, it's no longer an arc. It's pure laziness. What is it with you completely missing the damn point? I wasn't complaining that his arcs follow the same structure. I'm pointing out that after the same exact arc done three times, continuity reboot or not, it's not an arc anymore, that's just who the character is. He hasn't changed, and thus showing that change isn't a necessity of a good sequel. Althought I don't think Fury Road was a good movie, but his lack of an arc is the least of the film's problems

Why are continuing to be so obtuse?

Where did I say it wasn't a retread? Especially considering the film was basically a revision of the world of Mad Max to begin with. This is like getting up about Batman Begin being origin story for Bruce Wayne despite the fact the movie is very clearly meant to mark as starting point for an entirely new story. That's what a reboot is. Staring over again. I'll admit it may have a bit dubious of me to consider Fury Road a standalone sequel to begin with. But logistcally speaking it is continuation while being a soft reboot of the world of Mad Max altogether.

Taking that into consideration, Fury Road basically turned Mad Max from a character into more of a symbol. So even if a continuation in the not so traditional sense, carries similar plot and character elements and apply them to completely new cast, it can still fucking work.

Tom Hardy's Max was still regarded as a really good character despite having similarities to development of Mel Gibon's Max, Fury Road was considered the best entry in the franchise on the best action films ever mad. Fury Road is indeed caught in the weird limbo of being reboot and psuedo-sequel at the same time which muddy's the waters, but its clear Miller want to do a revision of Mad Max as supposed to continuing his story.

But it's very obvious you don't like the film, so I should have realised it was the equivalent of talking to a brick wall.

And your scenario is just Super Sentai but in DB world. It's the same story, but slightly different characters and plot done over and over again.

How many time do I have to say that a sequel to Dragon Ball doesn't have to be Goku 2.0, Vegeta 2.0, Gohan 2.0, Piccolo 2.0 etc before it stops flying over your head? The future stories of other martial artists don't have to be shackled and capped off by what came before it. That's an unnecessary minimalist mentality.

Beerus, I find your constant statements to the effect of "you don't know, it hasn't been proven, but it could be better" to have no firm basis.

Have we seen Dragon Ball try what I proposed for any significant amount of time? No. The most we got out of story that made no attempt to include Goku or had Goku lingering in the background waiting to return to the plot was in the Majin Boo arc. And that lasted 5 chapters. Hardly an attempt to begin with. That's why the words "if" and "could" are used in my comment. To infer a possibility.

Don't be obtuse.

This isn't about something being better, which is a matter of opinion, it's a matter of something being what it is. There are lots of series better than DB, but if I'm in the mood for DB, I don't want it to be DB but better, I want Dragon Ball.

Why settle for less? Part of what made Dragon Ball a unique shonen manga is that didn't do things other shonen manga at the time did. It was very unconventional in how the narrative progressed. And one of the (in)famous aspect of that narrative progression was growth. Toriyama was willing to quit drawing Dragon Ball if he wasn't allowed to have Goku become older. And that sense of physical progression brought allowed more subtle and simple but still effective character development, that eventually came its natural conclusion in the original story.

Throwing out Goku to have more adventures when his story is very clearly over is completely unnecessary because there would nothing of actual substance to gain out it for the character himself. It would all just scream of being nothing more than a nostalgia driven vanity project. And we've gotten enough already of that kind of shit as it is. Let the franchise try something different if it want to keep telling stories. If it's not willing to, I'd rather it end.

Dragon Ball will always be Dragon Ball as long there is a significant focus on martial arts, with elements of whimsy injected into it and character growth taking place during the confrontations in a subtle and nuanced fashion and the Dragon Ball themselves aren't forgotten and/or excluded completely from the story in its entirety.

[ABED]

You call me obtuse twice. That's rude. You will not do it a third time, you got that?

I don't even know why you brought James Bond up to begin with.

This goes to the heart of the matter in this "discussion" because you aren't reading. I reiterated exactly why I brought him up. I'll do it a third time hoping you will get it. You made a claim that Hardy's Max was completely different from Gibson's. I said they weren't that different, certainly no different in characterization than the different takes on Bond. The core character is the same even though the films are sometimes more grounded and sometimes more campy, thus making those films sequels. And then you said that's a ridiculous point because "007 is a moniker" as if that was a remotely relevant point.

When I bring up Super Sentai as an example, I'm not implying since I've stated flat out that the characters are different from previous series, but the core stories are the same. It gets boring. All of the changes are just window dressing. The only thing, the ONLY thing your idea gets the reader is the appearance of growth and change, but what it really gets them is more but without any of the characters they care about.

Dragon Ball just doesn't focus on only one person significantly.

See this is where you're fundamentally wrong. DB is the story of Son Goku. Other characters play an important role. Dragon Ball isn't about McGuffins, and it's not even about Martial Arts, it's about a particular martial artist. There are other characters that play important roles in his story but the element that runs through all the stories is Goku. Going without him is continuing the brand because that's all Dragon Ball would be by then - a brand. And a story doesn't have to focus on only one person significantly for it to be about a single character.

Dragon Ball will always be Dragon Ball as long there is a significant focus on martial arts, with elements of whimsy injected into it and character growth taking place during the confrontations in a subtle and nuanced fashion and the Dragon Ball themselves aren't forgotten and/or excluded completely from the story in its entirety.

You act as though those elements didn't exist before or since Dragon Ball. And to be frank, the character growth in DB is far from subtle.

It would all just scream of being nothing more than a nostalgia driven vanity project. And we've gotten enough already of that kind of shit as it is. Let the franchise try something different if it want to keep telling stories. If it's not willing to, I'd rather it end.

And continuing the Dragon Ball brand without the characters which are the only elements that fundamentally matter to Dragon Ball, not the damn plot devices, you still get a nostalgia driven project that should just be its own story. The only thing continuing Dragon Ball gets us is a cash in n the name. What you propose is so different that it should be its own thing. And yet somehow I get accused of not wanting to move on. When I brought up Super Sentai, you made this obnoxious comment where you asked "how many times do I have to say, it's not Goku and Vegeta and Piccolo 2.0." That wasn't what I was getting at. Super Sentai has different characters every season but it has core elements that don't change. The plots change, but it's fundamentally the same series every year. So either we get something so radically different from Dragon Ball or we get something vaguely similar but without the beating heart of what makes DB what it is - Son Goku and his friends.

Fury Road is indeed caught in the weird limbo of being reboot and psuedo-sequel at the same time which muddy's the waters

If you can admit that it's even a pseudo sequel, that contradicts your point that he has an arc. The same arc plays out three times proving my point that sequels don't require growth to be good. Your point about James Bond not growing from film to film being a reason why you don't care about them beyond a superficial level is fine, but that's a matter of personal taste. There is no rule that says characters have to develop. Goku's not a dynamic character. He becomes a better fighter and a tad more worldly but his fundamental desires don't change from the time we meet him to the end. There is only one rule to storytelling - don't be boring.

Are you really telling me you don't think someone couldn't think of someplace new to take Goku for a short series?

Why settle for less?

This isn't about settling. It's about DB being what it is. There are a lot better writers out there than Toriyama but I'm not interested in their take on DB, I want Toriyama's DB because it's his talents and interests that made DB what it is, flaws and all.

[Lord Beerus]

You call me obtuse twice. That's rude. You will not do it a third time, you got that?

I will call you obtuse if I feel you're acting obtuse. For the same reason you felt to say that my ignorance was astounding.

This goes to the heart of the matter in this "discussion" because you aren't reading. I reiterated exactly why I brought him up. I'll do it a third time hoping you will get it. You made a claim that Hardy's Max was completely different from Gibson's. I said they weren't that different, certainly no different in characterization than the different takes on Bond. The core character is the same even though the films are sometimes more grounded and sometimes more campy, thus making those films sequels. And then you said that's a ridiculous point because "007 is a moniker" as if that was a remotely relevant point.

I only said 007 is a moniker is became the plan on having some who isn't James Bond being 007. For all intents and purpose James Bond is 007 but they may be changing that completely. That's the only reason I made that statement.

And even taking James' Bond scenario into consideration, his story never really concluded due to Ian Flemming's tragic and untimely death, putting the character in a state of limbo that would allow many different films to be made them always been seen as sequels. James Bond does have to go through any drastic change in character development on basic plot structure because his story was left technically unfinished to begin with.

Hardy's Max departs from where Thunderdome left on and starts out at with Max initially being someone who was searching for righteous cause before turning into uncaring almost, feral-like survivor in with the subtle hints he's beyond mentally unhinged (possibly with schizophrenia as he's antisocial, hears voices, has vivid and disturbing hallucinations and constantly talks to himself), and rarely showed mercy in battle, with him almost killing pregnant woman. Gibson's Max was more open to companionship, even if in general he wanted to be alone, and had a degree of mercy.

When I bring up Super Sentai as an example, I'm not implying since I've stated flat out that the characters are different from previous series, but the core stories are the same. It gets boring. All of the changes are just window dressing. The only thing, the ONLY thing your idea gets the reader is the appearance of growth and change, but what it really gets them is more but without any of the characters they care about.

Super Sentai operates on the monster-of-the-week kind of storytelling, and has done so for over 40 years. Naturally it would get dull and repetitive in several cases over time. But that's not how not Dragon Ball operates, not should a hypothetical sequel feel obliged do what Dragon Ball did beat-for-beat or. I mean, a story the based around people beating the shit out of each other is going to have people beating the shit out each other a lot. Hell, Dragon Ball itself recycles its own stories and still manage to make them work. How you can keep a basic concept from getting stale comes down to the execution of many aspects such as tone, setting, themes and the handling of character archetypes.

See this is where you're fundamentally wrong. DB is the story of Son Goku. Other characters play an important role. Dragon Ball isn't about McGuffins, and it's not even about Martial Arts, it's about a particular martial artist. There are other characters that play important roles in his story but the element that runs through all the stories is Goku. Going without him is continuing the brand because that's all Dragon Ball would be by then - a brand. And a story doesn't have to focus on only one person significantly for it to be about a single character.

We're not going to see eye on this one. Dragon Ball tells the stories of many martial artists. Goku's story is without the most prominently the centre of attention (more so in the first 1/2 half of the story). But the story has no problem progressing without him being involved in every little detail or him serving as the catalyst for personal growth for some members of the cast.

You act as though those elements didn't exist before or since Dragon Ball. And to be frank, the character growth in DB is far from subtle.

Did you miss my comment on how several of aspects of Dragon Ball's storytelling were done before?

And continuing the Dragon Ball brand without the characters which are the only elements that fundamentally matter to Dragon Ball, not the damn plot devices, you still get a nostalgia driven project that should just be its own story. The only thing continuing Dragon Ball gets us is a cash in n the name. What you propose is so different that it should be its own thing. And yet somehow I get accused of not wanting to move on. When I brought up Super Sentai, you made this obnoxious comment where you asked "how many times do I have to say, it's not Goku and Vegeta and Piccolo 2.0." That wasn't what I was getting at. Super Sentai has different characters every season but it has core elements that don't change. The plots change, but it's fundamentally the same series every year. So either we get something so radically different from Dragon Ball or we get something vaguely similar but without the beating heart of what makes DB what it is - Son Goku and his friends.

It's just not the characters. The tone, theme, visual direction of the fights and setting are all equally important elements to making Dragon Ball what it is. This isn't me trying the undermine the importance of the characters, but there is more to Dragon Ball than just the characters that give it its distinctive vibe.

Kunzait83 made a fantastic thread talking about all of the Wuxia based elements that make Dragon Ball what it is.

Needless to say, there is a lot more than goes into process of creating Dragon Ball than makes it Dragon Ball beyond how you write the characters.

If you can admit that it's even a pseudo sequel, that contradicts your point that he has an arc. The same arc plays out three times proving my point that sequels don't require growth to be good. Your point about James Bond not growing from film to film being a reason why you don't care about them beyond a superficial level is fine, but that's a matter of personal taste. There is no rule that says characters have to develop. Goku's not a dynamic character. He becomes a better fighter and a tad more worldly but his fundamental desires don't change from the time we meet him to the end. There is only one rule to storytelling - don't be boring.

Part of what Mad Max 2 one of the best sequel to any movie ever was seeing Max Rockatansky evolve as character. And this is also Thunderdome still works a good continuation. Max is still gaining more of his humanity that was absolutely eroded in the first firm, restored in some ways in the second, before coming full circle in Thunderdome. That's why rebooting Mad Max in the unique way they did in Fury Road allowed for the character to be revised Max Rockatansky from the ground up, while still giving a sense that there was a preceeding legacy and foundation to Max Rockatansky with having to overt about it in the narrative itself. If Fury Road is a sequel, then can be about losing his sense of compassion before regaining it. And if its reboot, then we're starting all over again with Max. His character arc can be executed well even if it's in similar nature.

And this is case of personal taste for me, but I don't care much for sequels that do nothing to develop the central character(s) involved. This is big problem I have with most sequels to films but media in general, anyway. That's not say re-treading previous character development is something you should do. Modern Dragon Ball tried this with Vegeta, Gohan and Krillin, and it just didn't work, despite its good intentions, because the execution just wasn't there (Vegeta and Krillin) or the development just felt so half-hearted (Gohan). But that's not to say it can't be done well. It just need very good writing, which, in my opinion, Fury Road had.

Are you really telling me you don't think someone couldn't think of someplace new to take Goku for a short series?

GT spent many episodes trying to doing this. They had Goku travel across the fucking universe and it added nothing of substance to his character or even those supporting him. They even de-aged Goku right from the get-go to increase the stakes and try to re-create the charm of the early arcs of Dragon Ball, and it still didn't work.

This isn't about settling. It's about DB being what it is. There are a lot better writers out there than Toriyama but I'm not interested in their take on DB, I want Toriyama's DB because it's his talents and interests that made DB what it is, flaws and all.

You said don't want Dragon Ball to better than it can be. I don't get that mentality. Just because a Dragon Ball potentially being better doesn't make it any less "Dragon Ball" than what came before. I'm starting think you can't handle the idea of a sequel to Dragon Ball not having any of the original cast involved possibly being as good or better than what came before. it.

I love most of Toriyama's work. But since Battle Of Gods, he's kept Dragon Ball in its comfort zone, and kept the cast frozen in time. Making the battles and confrontations less of a exercise for character growth for the cast and more of an excuse to appeal to nostalgia of the glory days. This has been going on for over SEVEN YEARS. Let's move on already.

[Matches Malone]

You call me obtuse twice. That's rude. You will not do it a third time, you got that?

Is it really a good idea to tell someone who can destroy this entire solar system what he can and can't say ?

I will call you obtuse if I feel you're acting obtuse. For the same reason you felt to say that my ignorance was astounding.

Please your lordship, he didn't mean that, he's just confused.

[LoganForkHands73]

You call me obtuse twice. That's rude. You will not do it a third time, you got that?

Is it really a good idea to tell someone who can destroy this entire solar system what he can and can't say ?

I will call you obtuse if I feel you're acting obtuse. For the same reason you felt to say that my ignorance was astounding.

Please your lordship, he didn't mean that, he's just confused.

Let's ease the tension with some goddamn BINGO, baby

[Mad Swami]

You call me obtuse twice. That's rude. You will not do it a third time, you got that?

Is it really a good idea to tell someone who can destroy this entire solar system what he can and can't say ?

I will call you obtuse if I feel you're acting obtuse. For the same reason you felt to say that my ignorance was astounding.

Please your lordship, he didn't mean that, he's just confused.

Let's ease the tension with some goddamn BINGO, baby

Forget that, I have a dance

[ABED]

For the same reason you felt to say that my ignorance was astounding.

I said you lacked information. You called me dumb.

Even if Super Sentai were super serialized, it wouldn't change my fundamental point, the structure of the overall series is the same from season to season. I'm not talking just episode to episode.

But the story has no problem progressing without him being involved in every little detail or him serving as the catalyst for personal growth for some members of the cast.

You're confusing plot with story. And a story doesn't have to have the main character in every single moment to be about them.

Did you miss my comment on how several of aspects of Dragon Ball's storytelling were done before?

I got it the first time and every other time, I just don't think they are relevant to what distinguishes DB from other martial arts fantasies because those elements are very broad. Hell, take away the DB's and DB is still what it is because they are only plot devices.

It's just not the characters. The tone, theme, visual direction of the fights and setting are all equally important elements to making Dragon Ball what it is

Even if I agreed that they are equally as important, take away the characters, and you are missing an essential component to what makes DB what it is. And setting isn't important to DB. The characters are ALWAYS the most important. That's just a basic fact of storytelling. It's what stories are about. It's what determines the course of the plot. And that tone is in large part determined by the characters' choices. If you center the story on Vegeta, it's a much different story with a very different feel. And theme is too abstract to make something what it is. Lots of stories have a theme of constant self improvement.

GT spent many episodes trying to doing this.

So because a series that was badly conceived on just about every level couldn't do it, that proves it can't be done? The de-aging helps my point because they didn't attempt to take the narrative forward. They tried to recreate the past. GT has some promise, but it fundamentally lacked in execution. It's issue wasn't about keeping Goku as the lead. It's the terrible fights and not capitalizing on Goku's new roll as a grandfather. Instead Pan is used as the damsel and little more. There are some very sweet moments and unfortunately weren't as good as they could've been.

You said don't want Dragon Ball to better than it can be. I don't get that mentality.

Of course you don't if you frame it that way. You make it sound inevitable that if you instituted the changes you desire, it could be better. You're comparing the actual to some hypothetical which I find ridiculous. You're asserting that your suggestions would be better than the DB we got and I don't agree. There is NO basis for thinking even if they took your idea it would be any better or even good for that matter. It bothers me that you seem to be taking this incredulous tone with me over some version that you've concocted in your head that YOU think is better. Better would still be a matter of opinion and the mere fact that it doesn't have DB's characters makes it (I can't believe I have to say in my opinion) inherently inferior. Think of it this way - there are better artists than Toriyama, but I don't want them drawing Dragon Ball, I want Toriyama drawing Dragon Ball.

Dragon Ball was in its comfort zone for quite a while even in its original run. Toriyama kept going past logical end points and he got burned out. He had settled into a formula. And yes, lets move on, which is why you end the story. Keeping DB going without its characters isn't moving on.

Regarding Kunzait's post, you still miss the point. That was only pointing out what genre DB comes from. That post in no way makes whatever point you're trying to make. Genre is broad, whereas DB is specific. If you get rid of the characters, all you have left is the plot devices and genre tropes and neither of which are what made DB what it is.

And throughout this whole ridiculous discussion, you still have yet to give me a convincing argument why your hypothetical scenario which has none of the characters we care about is better off being Dragon Ball than it would be if it were a completely new series. Attaching the name DB to it is a cynical cash in. Why is your hypothetical story better off not being its own thing?

[Lord Beerus]

I said you lacked information. You called me dumb.

I called you annoyingly insensitive for saying I lacked information in a scenario where I was stating the obvious. Believe me if I wanted to just come out and call you dumb, I would have, but I didn't.

Even if Super Sentai were super serialized, it wouldn't change my fundamental point, the structure of the overall series is the same from season to season. I'm not talking just episode to episode.

And that's Super Sentai's choice to keep the structure the same. It shouldn't stand as definitive proof that continuing the story with new characters means the general narrative will still remain the same. And even if the general structure is the same, it still comes down to execution.

You're confusing plot with story. And a story doesn't have to have the main character in every single moment to be about them.

But you're constantly stating that Dragon Ball is Goku's story, which is I feel is too much of a generalisation because of how much other characters significantly compliment the plot of Dragon Ball as a whole. Yes, Dragon Ball focuses a lot on Goku, but it's not just about what he's doing, nor does it draw the illusion that he's only what he does bears significance.

I got it the first time and every other time, I just don't think they are relevant to what distinguishes DB from other martial arts fantasies because those elements are very broad. Hell, take away the DB's and DB is still what it is because they are only plot devices.

Those elements may be broad but they don't negate the fact that a story like Dragon Ball has been done before. A story about a group of martial arts that constantly get in ridiculously high fantasy and high stakes battles? Yeah. Done many times before Dragon Ball was a thing. It just that in the landscape of weekly shonen manga, it was still seen a pretty fresh.

Even if I agreed that they are equally as important, take away the characters, and you are missing an essential component to what makes DB what it is. And setting isn't important to DB. The characters are ALWAYS the most important. That's just a basic fact of storytelling. It's what stories are about. It's what determines the course of the plot. And that tone is in large part determined by the characters' choices. If you center the story on Vegeta, it's a much different story with a very different feel. And theme is too abstract to make something what it is. Lots of stories have a theme of constant self improvement.

There were several characters who were important to making Dragon Ball the simple and fun that it was, yet Toriyama had not problem sending those characters in the background, to either haven token minuscule roles or to be glorified cameo, and just replace them with new characters in their place. Dragon Ball didn't become any less of narrative about a group martial arts, because when guys like Roshi retire or Tenshinhan fade into the background or Piccolo gets demoted or Krillin and Yamcha retire from martial arts all together, you know what Toriyama did? He either found someone to fill that role or just left it vacant, resulting in the dwindling of the number of central characters to literally a handful of Saiyans.

A Dragon Ball series that has a new cast of characters isn't going to do anything to change what happened before it or feel the need to retool how the world of Dragon Ball work. Dragon Ball prides itself on being a simple story about a group of martial artists. A new cast of central characters that are also martial artists doesn't deviate from that at all. It's more of matter of nuances in the character writing that will determine whether the series could just as highly regarded as Dragon Ball was for it's simple and effective writing.

So because a series that was badly conceived on just about every level couldn't do it, that proves it can't be done? The de-aging helps my point because they didn't attempt to take the narrative forward. They tried to recreate the past. GT has some promise, but it fundamentally lacked in execution. It's issue wasn't about keeping Goku as the lead. It's the terrible fights and not capitalizing on Goku's new roll as a grandfather. Instead Pan is used as the damsel and little more. There are some very sweet moments and unfortunately weren't as good as they could've been.

No. I'm saying it can't be done because the people behind the scenes of GT realised there wasn't any way to organically continue Goku's story because:

a) By the end of the series he had become so ridiculously strong that there wouldn't be any way to increase the stakes without contriving new enemies that are somehow more powerful despite Majin Boo being a thing.

b) His character arc, as well as many other characters, had long concluded. Making any future confrontations less of an exercise in personal growth and more of shallow spectacle.

And we already have more than enough material in the past (pre-Battle Of Gods movies) and the present (everything from Battle Of Gods to now) that fits the criteria of b). Why does it just have to be more of that?

Of course you don't if you frame it that way. You make it sound inevitable that if you instituted the changes you desire, it could be better. You're comparing the actual to some hypothetical which I find ridiculous. You're asserting that your suggestions would be better than the DB we got and I don't agree. There is NO basis for thinking even if they took your idea it would be any better or even good for that matter. It bothers me that you seem to be taking this incredulous tone with me over some version that you've concocted in your head that YOU think is better. Better would still be a matter of opinion and the mere fact that it doesn't have DB's characters makes it (I can't believe I have to say in my opinion) inherently inferior. Think of it this way - there are better artists than Toriyama, but I don't want them drawing Dragon Ball, I want Toriyama drawing Dragon Ball.

This is a thread talking about an ideal sequel to Dragon Ball's work. My point of contention is that focusing on the current main cast for a hypothetical sequel is bewildering because:

a) There is nowhere left to take the character in term of development beyond retreading previous development, which ironically, Toriyama, Toei and Toyotaro are already doing with a large chunk of the new Dragon Ball stories.

b) A hypothetical, that by your judgement, is still Dragon Ball was already made and fully displayed the issues of having that kind of continuation to the original story.

Me saying that new cast of characters could lead to a better Dragon Ball is in a possibility. Just as much as it could be just the same as before or even worse. Hence the word "could" is used. As in, the infer a possibility. I never EVER stated that my ideal sequel to Dragon Ball has the certainty of being better. I just stated, on multiple occasions for that matter, that having a new cast of characters would allow for less restrictions in storytelling compared to what we have now. That's doesn't infer to show being better by any means. Every new story has blank slate to work with by default. It all comes down what you have planned for the story and how you plan to execute it with the characters you have in mind.

We don't know if a new Dragon Ball series in that fashion could be successful because nobody has been willing and I want them too. Just as much GT tried to see if if could capture the success of the previous series with how it conceived it's own story, and didn't reach the quality of original story, I want Dragon Ball to take the gamble on something different.

Dragon Ball was in its comfort zone for quite a while even in its original run. Toriyama kept going past logical end points and he got burned out. He had settled into a formula. And yes, lets move on, which is why you end the story. Keeping DB going without its characters isn't moving on.

Dragon Ball never had a comfort zone in the manga. The cast would always rotate to keep the story fresh and allow new character dynamics to be created that would keep the plot from getting repetitive.

Ending a story that ALREADY ENDED is NOT moving on. That's just artificially prolonging an ending. That's an epilogue, not a sequel. At the very least a new cast of characters would carry the on the tradition of moving onto the next generation of fighters when the previous have very much finished their in the spotlight.

Regarding Kunzait's post, you still miss the point. That was only pointing out what genre DB comes from. That post in no way makes whatever point you're trying to make. Genre is broad, whereas DB is specific. If you get rid of the characters, all you have left is the plot devices and genre tropes and neither of which are what made DB what it is

Dragon Ball is simple. It's martial artists beating the shit out of each other out of necessity or sport. It's not some golden unicorn of a martial arts story. It takes several Wuxia elements and homages to other martial arts stories and put them together in a way that was that the time simple, but also fun to read. That's not so say their aren't some some very quirky and distinctively charming character dynamics scattered across the manga, but for the most part, they've been done before in classic Chinese literature, which Dragon Ball is heavily inspired from. It's just in terms of mainstream shonen manga, Dragon Ball was among the first manga to put those kinds of Wuxia influenced elements into the spotlight of mass audience. Dragon Ball isn't some genre-bursting work that can't be placed into a certain category, because it can. And that genre is Wuxia.

And throughout this whole ridiculous discussion, you still have yet to give me a convincing argument why your hypothetical scenario which has none of the characters we care about is better off being Dragon Ball than it would be if it were a completely new series. Attaching the name DB to it is a cynical cash in. Why is your hypothetical story better off not being its own thing?

Because Dragon Ball found its success in about writing martial artists who people came to care about over the years because of its simple yet effective writing. Goku was an an interesting Youxia type characters, but he was far from the best in the Wuxia genre or even the first to appear in a shonen manga. Hes were done been before and can be done again, while still providing the noticeable charm and whimsy to the characters. It just comes down how much effort the author puts into writing the characters in question. The same goes for other character as well.

The Wulin community for Dragon Ball has so much to offer beyond what's already been done. And even what it has already offered can be tweaked to not seem like a retread.

Just to clarify one more time: I'm not saying that I'm certain that a new Dragon Ball series with a completely new cast of central character will inherently make the series better. Only saying that a new cast of characters will give a sequel to Dragon Ball (in a hypothetical sense) more of a storytelling advantage, at least in the department of character development, compared to what we have now (Super) and what's already been attempted in the past (GT), as it will have more to work with.

[ABED]

I called you annoyingly insensitive for saying I lacked information in a scenario where I was stating the obvious. Believe me if I wanted to just come out and call you dumb, I would have, but I didn't.

Thing is I don't believe you. You weren't stating the obvious. You think it's obvious but it's not actually obvious. I called your ignorant because your argument boils down to Dragon Ball being a part of an expansive genre. It's not the tropes that were the draw. Just like any genre, it has works that are more successful and some that are less successful. What did DB do that made it more successful than just about other wuxia story? Nothing in your posts shows you have an answer for that question.

That's an epilogue, not a sequel. At the very least a new cast of characters would carry the on the tradition of moving onto the next generation of fighters when the previous have very much finished their in the spotlight.

Your example isn't a sequel. It's apparently not the next generation, it has none of the characters, doesn't have a similar structure, and contains nothing but plot devices to prove it's in the same world as the original series. That's not a sequel, it's a different show altogether. And Dragon Ball doesn't have a tradition of moving to the next gen. Goku and his generation were the next generation but their kids didn't take over their spots.

He either found someone to fill that role or just left it vacant, resulting in the dwindling of the number of central characters to literally a handful of Saiyans.

The one constant - surprise, surprise - Goku, the main character because it's HIS STORY!

Dragon Ball is simple. It's martial artists beating the shit out of each other out of necessity or sport. It's not some golden unicorn of a martial arts story.

And yet, Dragon Ball became this runaway smash hit whereas others didn't. Goku and his friends struck a chord with mass audiences over decades. That success is not easily replicable like your posts imply. It doesn't all come down to quality of the writing. It's lightning in a bottle. It's not a question of talent or effort.

Hes were done been before and can be done again, while still providing the noticeable charm and whimsy to the characters. It just comes down how much effort the author puts into writing the characters in question. The same goes for other character as well.

You make it sound so easy to create a multibillion dollar hit that continually draws new generations of fans. It can be done, but it won't be a simple matter of talent. The factors that lead anything to be successful also includes timing. Just like every giant success, it spawned a bunch of imitators but how many duplicated its success?

And for the love of all that is holy, answer my question - why tell a wuxia story under the DB banner with a brand new cast instead of just creating a new wuxia story from whole-clothe?

[Lord Beerus]

Thing is I don't believe you. You weren't stating the obvious. You think it's obvious but it's not actually obvious. I called your ignorant because your argument boils down to Dragon Ball being a part of an expansive genre. It's not the tropes that were the draw. Just like any genre, it has works that are more successful and some that are less successful. What did DB do that made it more successful than just about other wuxia story? Nothing in your posts shows you have an answer for that question.

Saying you don't believe me would have been fine. Saying that my "ignorance is astounding", despite the fact I provided you with the information back up some of my points, with one of them being a direct quote from Toriyama himself validating my stance that Dragon Ball is about fighting/martial arts, is whole another thing together. And that's what I took offence with.

In terms of shonen manga and anime, it was one of the first to have a heavy focus on martial arts while maintaining a simple premise for anyone to get into. In Japan, this was greatly aided by the fact that Dr Slump had made Toriyama arguably to most popular and successful mangaka in the 1980s, giving his major next work a lot of attention to begin with. In the West, for a lot of people Dragon Ball was among the first anime they ever watched as a child or teenager. A lot of people will say that Dragon Ball is the best martial arts shonen manga/anime, because its the ONLY martial arts shonen manga/anime they had experienced. For some people, Dragon Ball/Z was one of the handful of anime they ever watched, PERIOD. And then there are some fans who were sucked into Dragon Ball because they were interested in the fighting and that's it. One of the main complaints so fans had about Battle Of Gods was tha there too much story and not enough fighting. And that lead to Resurrection F shaping it's narrative solely around fighting.

I'm not trying to take anything away for the success that Dragon Ball has cultivated, it's just that, in the terms of mainstream martial arts manga and anime, it was one of, if not the first, that people saw. If you go down the rabbit hole of the genre Dragon Ball is based in (Wuxia) you'll see how much it's heavily influenced and outright take cues from other kung-fu films, martial arts dramas and classic Chinese literature, and realise it wasn't THAT special to begin with. I mean, there are some Dragon Ball fans who still don't know that Journey to the West is a thing or even know what Wuxia is.

Your example isn't a sequel. It's apparently not the next generation, it has none of the characters, doesn't have a similar structure, and contains nothing but plot devices to prove it's in the same world as the original series. That's not a sequel, it's a different show altogether. And Dragon Ball doesn't have a tradition of moving to the next gen. Goku and his generation were the next generation but their kids didn't take over their spots.

I just said a different cast of central characters, which at any given time boils down to a few characters. I never said the structure had to be different, or that the cast were in some way descendants of the previous main cast. I just wanted a new cast because the current one has no room left to develop their characters. Making any further adventures with them feeling more redundant than necessary to over plot of Dragon Ball -- which is basically what we've been getting for the seven year with no signs of ending. (Hence why I've become exhausted on the idea of Goku and gang having more stories that are more interested in appealing to nostalgia rather than enriching their personality)

I've said several times that the tone, setting and themes of Dragon Ball don't have to change. There COULD be some tweaks to how the story is told if a new cast of central characters is introduced, but it's NOT mandatory for it be seen a genuine sequel story.

And yet, Dragon Ball became this runaway smash hit whereas others didn't. Goku and his friends struck a chord with mass audiences over decades. That success is not easily replicable like your posts imply. It doesn't all come down to quality of the writing. It's lightning in a bottle. It's not a question of talent or effort.

Most of the people who go into to Dragon Ball were children/young boys, who's knowledge of martial arts stories was either extremely limited or non-existent. If you present them with something they have no knowledge about, they'll naturally think it's brand new concept if they've never seen or heard of it before. The only shonen manga that predated Dragon Ball to have a heavy focus on martial arts and be heavily influenced from classic Chinese literature based around Wuxia was Fist Of The North Star. And you could argue that was the manga that kick-started the major interest of martial arts based manga toward the Shonen demographic in Japan, considering martial arts manga prior to Fist Of The North star was aimed specifically at a much older audience, limiting its appeal.

You make it sound so easy to create a multibillion dollar hit that continually draws new generations of fans. It can be done, but it won't be a simple matter of talent. The factors that lead anything to be successful also includes timing. Just like every giant success, it spawned a bunch of imitators but how many duplicated its success?

It's not easy. It took 30 years, over a dozen movies, a truck load of video games, four different anime series and a ridiculously amount of re-releases on home video and for the manga itself in Japan and internationally.

I'm not expecting a sequel to Dragon Ball to get that much time and attention out of gate. Especially now that some fans are much wiser to what influences Dragon Ball.

And for the love of all that is holy, answer my question - why tell a wuxia story under the DB banner with a brand new cast instead of just creating a new wuxia story from whole-clothe?

BECAUSE IT'S STILL SET IN THE SAME WORLD AS WHEN THE STORY BEGAN.

It's not some alternate universe where the adventures of the main cast never happened or the Dragon Balls don't exist. And as much as you want to downplay the importance of the Dragon Ball themselves and relegate them the MacGuffins, when the story itself makes a point of how integral the Dragon Ball were to journeys of the main characters and remain important factor in retaining the formula that appealed the most to Dragon Ball (The main characters never being in any permanent danger in every arc), I think it's safe to say they are more than just objects that exist out of obligation to the narrative.

[ABED]

BECAUSE IT'S STILL SET IN THE SAME WORLD AS WHEN THE STORY BEGAN.

It's not some alternate universe where the adventures of the main cast never happened or the Dragon Balls don't exist. And as much as you want to downplay the importance of the Dragon Ball themselves and relegate them the MacGuffins, when the story itself makes a point of how integral the Dragon Ball were to journeys of the main characters and remain important factor in retaining the formula that appealed the most to Dragon Ball (The main characters never being in any permanent danger in every arc), I think it's safe to say they are more than just objects that exist out of obligation to the narrative.

I'll try again to rephrase. The DB story you want to tell in this "sequel" is so radically different that I don't understand why you wouldn't want it to be it's own thing and not Dragon Ball at all? Not a spin off, not a prequel, nothing at all related to Dragon Ball - it's own independent IP. With that, the world is literally wide open for any creator to make up their own narratives and rules and lore and world building.

A McGuffin is important to the plot, so you haven't disproven they are just objects that get the plot going.

I think you are downplaying how important intangible factors like timing and lightning in a bottle are to something being successful.

[Lord Beerus]

I'll try again to rephrase. The DB story you want to tell in this "sequel" is so radically different that I don't understand why you wouldn't want it to be it's own thing and not Dragon Ball at all? Not a spin off, not a prequel, nothing at all related to Dragon Ball - it's own independent IP. With that, the world is literally wide open for any creator to make up their own narratives and rules and lore and world building.

A McGuffin is important to the plot, so you haven't disproven they are just objects that get the plot going.

Again, I'm not asking for something radically different. You can set the story 10 years, 20, years or 100 years after a majority of the original cast aren't with us anymore. Having new characters doesn't meant the charm and whimsy of Dragon Ball has to pushed aside to make room for that change in the cast. I never said I wanted that, or that even has to be the case. The two can mutually co-exist.

I mean, if you want to have it both ways, guys like Roshi, #17, #18, Piccolo and Majin Boo essentially have eternal life and characters like Fortuneteller Baba and Mr Popo have an extremely extended lifespan. Those guys can still hang around the plot if they wish, and even have the occasional cameo. I just want the plot focus predominately to be on cultivating new central cast of characters rather than relying on nostalgia to push the plot forward. I'm not asking for EVERYTHING about Dragon Ball to eviscerated.

The themes, setting, tone and character archetypes that Dragon Ball initially worked with can still be there. I just want new personal stories I can get into that go beyond the superficial "Hey, it's those guys from X" feeling that I've gotten from Dragon Ball stories for nearly a decade. I'm just bored of it.

The Dragon Balls themselves go beyond being just a bunch of MacGuffins in that their aren't just important to not only motivating the characters to go on certain adventures, but they act as safety net for the cast to fall back if/when shit hits the fan. The Dragon Balls can't be replaced like your average MacGuffin could be. The only thing that replace the original Dragon Balls is with another identical set of Dragon Balls because of the unique properties it has and how relevant they are to the plot, especially when the body-count starts to rack up incredibly around the time the Saiyans arrive.

The Dragon Balls are literally the backbone of the narrative. If you were to kick the Dragon Balls out of the narrative and never mention them again after the first arc or so, you would get a completely different on-going plot. It's not like Indiana Jones where the new adventures can work just as well previous ones if you were to replace one MacGuffin with a completely different MacGuffin.

[ABED]

That they keep using the same McGuffin doesn't stop them from being McGuffin's.

To use your Indiana Jones example, had he not gone after the arc, he wouldn't have reconnected with Marion and he wouldn't have become a more complete archaeologist, but that doesn't stop the Ark from being a McGuffin.