Your ideal Dragon Ball sequel.

[Lord Beerus]

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.

But MacGuffin literally means they have no relevance beyond kickstarting the plot and giving the cast an adventure. And that's not just true. The story itself talks about how incredibly important the Dragon Ball were to the cast beyond a superficial level. The Dragon Ball are more than plot devices, they were an integral part in not only bringing the cast the together but aiding in moulding them into the people they became to be. The Dragon Balls enriched the characters. They became more than just objects the cast were after. Which is far more than what you say your average MacGuffin.

Indiana was already a complete archaeologist before he met Marion. Marion does nothing to change his character. Hell, she's completely forgotten about for nearly 30 years, and in the films after Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Indiana goes right back to being the same character, only with a different woman.

[ABED]

But MacGuffin literally means they have no relevance beyond kickstarting the plot and giving the cast an adventure. And that's not just true. The story itself talks about how incredibly important the Dragon Ball were to the cast beyond a superficial level. The Dragon Ball are more than plot devices, they were an integral part in not only bringing the cast the together but aiding in moulding them into the people they became to be. The Dragon Balls enriched the characters. They became more than just objects the cast were after. Which is far more than what you say your average MacGuffin.

The dragon balls did not mold them. Meeting each other molded them which happened because Bulma found the Dragon Balls, hence they are McGuffins.

Indiana was already a complete archaeologist before he met Marion. Marion does nothing to change his character. Hell, she's completely forgotten about for nearly 30 years, and in the films after Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Indiana goes right back to being the same character, only with a different woman.

It turns out she was the love of his life and eventual mother of his son.

And no, he wasn't a complete archaeologist. He was a skeptic at the beginning of the film and claimed he didn't believe in the supernatural. It might be implied instead of outright said. It's been a while since I've seen it but it's clear that Indiana doesn't believe in the supernatural aspect of it.

[Lord Beerus]

The dragon balls did mold them. Meeting each other molded them which happened because Bulma found the Dragon Balls, hence they are McGuffins.

Definition of MacGuffin: "something in a film that moves the plot (= story) forward but is not important itself"
- Most mysteries have a MacGuffin, an event or item designed to motivate the characters but which is actually just a meaningless placeholder.
- Hitchcock described the "MacGuffin" as a meaningless, unimportant detail that solely existed to serve as a reason for the story to exist.
Source: Cambridge Dictionary

Are the Dragon Ball something used to move plot forward? Yes. Are the Dragon Balls not important in itself? No. And the story goes out of its way to talk about how important the Dragon Balls are beyond something some of the cast were after initially. There's no denying that later the Dragon Balls become more of a superficial part of the plot, but their relevance is still key to being the safety net the cast need in case shit goes bad.

And no, he wasn't a complete archaeologist. He was a skeptic at the beginning of the film and claimed he didn't believe in the supernatural. It might be implied instead of outright said. It's been a while since I've seen it but it's clear that Indiana doesn't believe in the supernatural aspect of it.

But then he goes right back to being skeptic in Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. So the the Ark of the Covenant wasn't important to Indy's character at all as despite the fact that he's encountered many powerful artifacts over the years, he still sneers at the prospect of magical telepathic skulls or any new "mystical" discovery.

In the end with Marion, yeah Indiana marries her, but that's not because of the Ark of the Covenant.

[ABED]

Plot and story aren't the same thing. They're similar but not the same.

But then he goes right back to being skeptic in Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.

That's just shitty writing.

In the end with Marion, yeah Indiana marries her, but that's not because of the Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark provided him a reason to run into her. Looking for the Ark was a part of the plot, but it wasn't the story. The story was of a somewhat cynical archaeologist gets in touch with the spiritual side of his occupation that he dismissed and grows as a person which parallels with his re-connection with Marion. Without the quest for the Ark, he remains a skeptic and doesn't run into Marion.

In Dragon Ball's case, the DB's are important in that they allowed Goku to meet Bulma who convinced him to travel the world, which lead to every subsequent event in his life. That page you keep posting as if somehow I missed it in all the times I've read and watched Dragon Ball doesn't disprove my point. Roshi's saying that without Goku having that one Dragon Ball, Bulma never meets Goku and everything else doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it wasn't a McGuffin. The cast got together because of the plot to find the Dragon Balls. The DB's help resolve the plot. It is exactly the sort of thing one expects from a McGuffin. The only DB that doesn't apply to is the 4 Star DB.

[Lord Beerus]

The Ark provided him a reason to run into her. Looking for the Ark was a part of the plot, but it wasn't the story. The story was of a somewhat cynical archaeologist gets in touch with the spiritual side of his occupation that he dismissed and grows as a person which parallels with his re-connection with Marion. Without the quest for the Ark, he remains a skeptic and doesn't run into Marion.

Indiana Jones is a cynic, but his heart was always in the right when it came to him being an archaeologist. He always had a "This should be in a museum" attitude to ancient artifices, even when he was very young. Meeting Marion could have served as avenue to develop his character. But after Raiders Of The Lost Ark his largely character stays the same. And Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull kinda fucked everything up. (Hate that movie)

In Dragon Ball's case, the DB's are important in that they allowed Goku to meet Bulma who convinced him to travel the world, which lead to every subsequent event in his life. That page you keep posting as if somehow I missed it in all the times I've read and watched Dragon Ball doesn't disprove my point. Roshi's saying that without Goku having that one Dragon Ball, Bulma never meets Goku and everything else doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it wasn't a McGuffin. The cast got together because of the plot to find the Dragon Balls. The DB's help resolve the plot. It is exactly the sort of thing one expects from a McGuffin. The only DB that doesn't apply to is the 4 Star DB.

But a MacGuffin by definition is something that triggers the plot, and that's it. The Dragon Balls bear much more significance than just something that kick-start a plot. They are the reset button that the cast immensely depend upon when shit gets rough for more than half of the overall narrative. And when an object in the show has the power to literally reinstate the status quo of the narrative, that's when they stop being MacGuffin's. Because MacGuffin's never have that much power to change a story or continuity of the plot.

[ABED]

I will keep harping on this because again, you still have yet to answer, your "sequel" idea removes the elements fundamental to what Dragon Ball is - its characters. If all it keeps are some plot devices, why make this new story tied to Dragon Ball? Why not make a completely different and new series that way you can tell whatever kinds of stories you want?

Meeting Marion could have served as avenue to develop his character. But after Raiders Of The Lost Ark his largely character stays the same.

That's not true. As stated, he goes from Skeptic to believer.

[Lord Beerus]

I will keep harping on this because again, you still have yet to answer, your "sequel" idea removes the elements fundamental to what Dragon Ball is - its characters. If all it keeps are some plot devices, why make this new story tied to Dragon Ball? Why not make a completely different and new series that way you can tell whatever kinds of stories you want?

And I keep saying that the characters are one of the key elements to Dragon Ball's narrative. The other significant elements are the setting, theme, tone and plot. This isn't even just concerning Dragon Ball's narrative, that's how storytelling works in general.

That's not true. As stated, he goes from Skeptic to believer.

And goes back to skeptic in the fourth movie.

[ABED]

I will keep harping on this because again, you still have yet to answer, your "sequel" idea removes the elements fundamental to what Dragon Ball is - its characters. If all it keeps are some plot devices, why make this new story tied to Dragon Ball? Why not make a completely different and new series that way you can tell whatever kinds of stories you want?

And I keep saying that the characters are one of the key elements to Dragon Ball's narrative. The other significant elements are the setting, theme, tone and plot. This isn't even just concerning Dragon Ball's narrative, that's how storytelling works in general.

That's not true. As stated, he goes from Skeptic to believer.

And goes back to skeptic in the fourth movie.

You are missing the point. I'm not here to argue Indiana Jones, simply pointing out that the journey to find the first film's McGuffin was important to the film's story in that it set things in motion but it wasn't really about the Ark. It was about the character, much like the journey to find the Dragon Balls

The plot are what the characters do and say. Tone is vague not to mention can change radically over the course of a narrative, theme is too broad (lots of very stories in many different genres can all be about the same theme), and setting isn't the draw for DB. These things are important but not of equal importance. Lets say you take away everything except the theme and setting, how is that Dragon Ball? It's not because that's not how storytelling works. If you take away the KEY ingredient, the one that determines the plot, story, tone, and what the work is trying to say, then it's become something different. It's DB in name only. Using the name DB not only hurts DB, it also hurts this "new" story because instead having a brand new story where the world and the characters are created from scratch and have infinite possibilities, we have more of a work that should've stayed dormant decades ago.

[Lord Beerus]

You are missing the point. I'm not here to argue Indiana Jones, simply pointing out that the journey to find the first film's McGuffin was important to the film's story in that it set things in motion but it wasn't really about the Ark. It was about the character, much like the journey to find the Dragon Balls

I know that the beginning of Dragon Ball was more about the characters than actually finding the Dragon Balls themselves. I just don't agree with the idea that the Dragon Balls are MacGuffins, when they have a much more important role in the plot than just staring it.

The plot are what the characters do and say. Tone is vague not to mention can change radically over the course of a narrative, theme is too broad (lots of very stories in many different genres can all be about the same theme), and setting isn't the draw for DB. These things are important but not of equal importance. Lets say you take away everything except the theme and setting, how is that Dragon Ball? It's not because that's not how storytelling works. If you take away the KEY ingredient, the one that determines the plot, story, tone, and what the work is trying to say, then it's become something different. It's DB in name only. Using the name DB not only hurts DB, it also hurts this "new" story because instead having a brand new story where the world and the characters are created from scratch and have infinite possibilities, we have more of a work that should've stayed dormant decades ago.

Changing the cast does NOT mean tone, story, theme and/or setting have to be sacrificed at the alter for a Dragon Ball sequel to exist. It's an "all or nothing" mentality that unnecessarily creates a limit to what kind plot you can have. The creativity you can have with a Youxia type character is limitless, but that doesn't automatically mean it needs to veer into anti-Dragon Ball territory to be special. Hell, Dragon Ball went down that route with the Bardock TV special, and its one of the best stories to ever come out of franchise and fits seamlessly into Dragon Ball's narrative with feeling out of place.

The tone, setting and theme are important to complimenting the character you want to write. For example, you can't have a comedy relief character you've previously written injected into story where the tone or setting doesn't fit for them. Hell, that's the reason why gag characters like Lunch and Pilaf Gang stopped appearing all together.

We don't know if a new cast of characters will becomes as loved as the original cast, or even if they're given enough time to flesh out characters. What is important isn't forgetting that Dragon Ball at its core and that is adventures, trials and tribulations of a group of martial artists, usually fronted by a Youxia type character. One person's story centred around martial arts doesn't make the next person story centred around martial and less Dragon Ball than what came before it. Especially when you can so much with genre that Dragon Ball is based in (Wuxia).

[ABED]

I know that the beginning of Dragon Ball was more about the characters than actually finding the Dragon Balls themselves. I just don't agree with the idea that the Dragon Balls are MacGuffins, when they have a much more important role in the plot than just staring it.

The plot, but not the story.

. The creativity you can have with a Youxia type character is limitless,

Yes, by all means, tell a Youxia story, but DB is about Goku and his friends. Why tell another story under the DB banner when you can create a brand new franchise?

[Lord Beerus]

The plot, but not the story.

Debatable given that the reliance on the Dragon Balls leads to the cast becoming far more relaxed to the idea of innocent people being killed, even if it concerns people they know personally. They sure as hell didn't have that kind of attitude early on the story.

Yes, by all means, tell a Youxia story, but DB is about Goku and his friends. Why tell another story under the DB banner when you can create a brand new franchise?

Because that would imply that the plot and story abandons it focus on martial arts, which is what defines Goku's and the rest of the casts character. There is certainly whimsy and charm in Dragon Ball, but it all stems from Goku and his friends -- but more so specifically Goku -- moulding their lives around martial arts and the challenges that put those skills in combat to the test. If you take out the core element of martial arts from the story or plot, that is when Dragon Ball stops being Dragon Ball, and you may as well re-brand the show. And that is not what I am suggesting my hypothetical sequel to Dragon Ball to do.

[Psajdak]

It is too late for Dragon Ball to change all that much at this point, especially with new main cast, considering how iconic old ones are, and their voice actors.

[ABED]

The plot, but not the story.

Debatable given that the reliance on the Dragon Balls leads to the cast becoming far more relaxed to the idea of innocent people being killed, even if it concerns people they know personally. They sure as hell didn't have that kind of attitude early on the story.

Yes, by all means, tell a Youxia story, but DB is about Goku and his friends. Why tell another story under the DB banner when you can create a brand new franchise?

Because that would imply that the plot and story abandons it focus on martial arts, which is what defines Goku's and the rest of the casts character. There is certainly whimsy and charm in Dragon Ball, but it all stems from Goku and his friends -- but more so specifically Goku -- moulding their lives around martial arts and the challenges that put those skills in combat to the test. If you take out the core element of martial arts from the story or plot, that is when Dragon Ball stops being Dragon Ball, and you may as well re-brand the show. And that is not what I am suggesting my hypothetical sequel to Dragon Ball to do.

What is it that you don't get about my damn question that you never ever answer? Why not create a brand new story that has nothing to do with Dragon Ball?

[Psajdak]

Why not create a brand new story that has nothing to do with Dragon Ball?

Because no one gives a shit about stories without Goku, Vegeta, Bulma, and others.

[ABED]

Why not create a brand new story that has nothing to do with Dragon Ball?

Because no one gives a shit about stories without Goku, Vegeta, Bulma, and others.

What isn't clear? I'm not talking about a new DB show. I'm saying if you are going to tell a Dragon Ball story that's not about Goku and Vegeta and the others, but still about martial arts, why not make an entirely original show?

[Psajdak]

What isn't clear? I'm not talking about a new DB show. I'm saying if you are going to tell a Dragon Ball story that's not about Goku and Vegeta and the others, but still about martial arts, why not make an entirely original show?

Because no one gives a shit about stories without Goku, Vegeta, Bulma, and others, OR, no one gives a shit about stories that aren't Dragon Ball related.

When it comes to Toriyama, putting aside his artstyle for games like Dragon Quest, the only thing people want from him is more Dragon Ball.

[Lord Beerus]

What is it that you don't get about my damn question that you never ever answer? Why not create a brand new story that has nothing to do with Dragon Ball?

I've answered the question so many times already. The foundation of Dragon Ball's plot is high fantasy martial arts, with the focus of the story being on handful of character getting involved in a series of fights, with the Dragon Balls serving an important background element to resolving the plot. Is that going change? Have I ever suggesting that it will or even has to change?

You can't separate what the character(s) is from what they do. Especially considering that what they are influences what they do. And what does Goku and the rest of the main do do? They focus on improving themselves through martial arts. This concept was not invented by Dragon Ball not does need to die with them if a continuation of the original work happens. Especially if that continuation has the exact same damn narrative foundation.

Saying that a sequel to Dragon Ball that has focus on martial arts isn't "Dragon Ball" because the main cast aren't there -- even though the core element of the stories that the cast build themselves around remains intact -- is just being ludicrously pedantic. It's not like Akira Toriyama trademarked and copyrighted this kind of storytelling for only his work.

[ABED]

You haven't answered my question. You never have. Just tell me in two sentences why your idea is not better suited being a completely original series?

The basis of all storytelling is character. You don't understand my points at all despite it being clear English. I ask you direct easy questions and you miss the point every single damn time. At no point have I suggested martial arts are separate from the characters in Dragon Ball. The story of DB isn't "martial artists" in general but a specific group of martial artists. THAT is how storytelling works.

As much as I disagree with Psajdak, at least they understood my damn question. Audiences are not invested in just any martial artists in DB, they are invested in specific group of martial artists because that's what Toriyama's story is about. That's what every story is about - a specific group of characters. Once that story is over then the right thing to do is make another original series not just force another group into the franchise. That's not pedantry.

[Lord Beerus]

You haven't answered my question. You never have. Just tell me in two sentences why your idea is not better suited being a completely original series?

The basis of all storytelling is character. You don't understand my points at all despite it being clear English. I ask you direct easy questions and you miss the point every single damn time. At no point have I suggested martial arts are separate from the characters in Dragon Ball. The story of DB isn't "martial artists" in general but a specific group of martial artists.

As much as I disagree with Psajdak, at least they understood my damn question. Audiences are not invested in just any martial artists in DB, they are invested in specific group of martial artists because that's what Toriyama's story is about. That's what every story is about - a specific group of characters. Once that story is over then the right thing to do is make another original series not just force another group into the franchise. That's not pedantry.

You're constantly saying that a Dragon Ball story wouldn't be Dragon Ball if the main cast weren't involved -- even though something like that not only has happened but was very well revived by the fandom and by Toriyama himself -- as a counterpoint to a sequel to Dragon Ball featuring a new cast. You're incredulous to the idea that a story that focus on the same thing that influenced the cast the act the way and make Dragon Ball the narrative that it was wouldn't qualify as being Dragon Ball under some arbitrary semantics.

I mean, yeah, when it comes to a completely new character or an entirely new cast, obviously the audience aren't going to care default because they need a reason to be invested in their journey. But it's up the creative team to pull that off. Whether that can be done is up for question, but you seem adamant that a sequel to Dragon Ball with new main characters wouldn't be able to do that, despite the fact that concept hasn't been given a chance. Do you think fans gave a shit about Goku when he first debuted? No. It took several years of writing for the audience to become attached to Goku and rest of the main cast.

How will the storytelling of narrative that has a martial artist getting involved a series of high fantasy battles feel any less connected to a narrative that does literally the exact same thing? As controversial at this may sound, a lot of people's love for Dragon Ball stems from its viscerally thrilling and captivating spectacle, which was not only due to Toriyama's skills as mangaka, but from the many movies and games that re-created the series most famous story beats. This isn't to say that people didn't care for the characters themselves, but when a character like Broly gets four movies, one of which has not only his character rebooting but ends up being the highest grossing Dragon Ball film ever, and the biggest reason why some people didn't like Battle Of Gods was because there wasn't enough fighting, it's safe to say a lot fans put their stock of Dragon Ball in the presentation of fisticuffs.

People still cared about and liked Star Trek and viewed it as Star Trek even when the main cast goes through wholesale changes in the sequel series. It was the same deal with Stargate and Watchmen. You're insistent on the idea that sequel with new characters in the spotlight is less of the test of new storytelling and more of a case of branding, and I don't agree that kind of mentality at all.

It also doesn't help your argument to the alternative to what I've proposed is not only something that we've already gotten but also something we're going through right now. Especially since both examples were far more egregious in attempt at branding rather than actually telling a consistently coherent and intriguing narrative that complimented and enriched the main established characters involved.

[ABED]

You haven't answered my question. You never have. Just tell me in two sentences why your idea is not better suited being a completely original series?

The basis of all storytelling is character. You don't understand my points at all despite it being clear English. I ask you direct easy questions and you miss the point every single damn time. At no point have I suggested martial arts are separate from the characters in Dragon Ball. The story of DB isn't "martial artists" in general but a specific group of martial artists.

As much as I disagree with Psajdak, at least they understood my damn question. Audiences are not invested in just any martial artists in DB, they are invested in specific group of martial artists because that's what Toriyama's story is about. That's what every story is about - a specific group of characters. Once that story is over then the right thing to do is make another original series not just force another group into the franchise. That's not pedantry.

You're constantly saying that a Dragon Ball story wouldn't be Dragon Ball if the main cast weren't involved -- even though something like that not only has happened but was very well revived by the fandom and by Toriyama himself -- as a counterpoint to a sequel to Dragon Ball featuring a new cast. You're incredulous to the idea that a story that focus on the same thing that influenced the cast the act the way and make Dragon Ball the narrative that it was wouldn't qualify as being Dragon Ball under some arbitrary semantics.

I mean, yeah, when it comes to a completely new character or an entirely new cast, obviously the audience aren't going to care default because they need a reason to be invested in their journey. But it's up the creative team to pull that off. Whether that can be done is up for question, but you seem adamant that a sequel to Dragon Ball with new main characters wouldn't be able to do that, despite the fact that concept hasn't been given a chance. Do you think fans gave a shit about Goku when he first debuted? No. It took several years of writing for the audience to become attached to Goku and rest of the main cast.

How will the storytelling of narrative that has a martial artist getting involved a series of high fantasy battles feel any less connected to a narrative that does literally the exact same thing? As controversial at this may sound, a lot of people's love for Dragon Ball stems from its viscerally thrilling and captivating spectacle, which was not only due to Toriyama's skills as mangaka, but from the many movies and games that re-created the series most famous story beats. This isn't to say that people didn't care for the characters themselves, but when a character like Broly gets four movies, one of which has not only his character rebooting but ends up being the highest grossing Dragon Ball film ever, and the biggest reason why some people didn't like Battle Of Gods was because there wasn't enough fighting, it's safe to say a lot fans put their stock of Dragon Ball in the presentation of fisticuffs.

People still cared about and liked Star Trek and viewed it as Star Trek even when the main cast goes through wholesale changes in the sequel series. It was the same deal with Stargate and Watchmen. You're insistent on the idea that sequel with new characters in the spotlight is less of the test of new storytelling and more of a case of branding, and I don't agree that kind of mentality at all.

It also doesn't help your argument to the alternative to what I've proposed is not only something that we've already gotten but also something we're going through right now. Especially since both examples were far more egregious in attempt at branding rather than actually telling a consistently coherent and intriguing narrative that complimented and enriched the main established characters involved.

Sure, a 40 minute one off TV special - that's the same.

And you are abusing the word "arbitrary". Stories are about characters that's just a fact.

Of course they didn't care about Goku, they didn't know him. They didn't know what Dragon Ball was either. However the audience grew and so did expectations. They came to care about Goku in his own story. After years with him as the lead the name DB will carry expectations and baggage because when they think DB they think Goku which makes sense given it's about him! Imagine that, stories are about their main characters. Creating a brand new series gets rid of any expectations and allows a fresh start.

And things like this have been tried. Shows keep going all the time without a lead. It doesn't end well. And it's not always a function of the writing. you dismiss lightning in a bottle as a factor.

Star Trek series aren't sequels, they're spin offs. Watchmen was a sequel. It followed the characters at a later point in their story. Why can't you get the concepts straight?

ANd your Broly example is ridiculous for so many reasons, not the least of which is people like the character!

I'm not separating the characters from the fighting. You are. It's not just the fighting, it's not just the characters, it's specific characters fighting that matter to people.

And you continue to evade the question.