Your ideal Dragon Ball sequel.

[ABED]

The Evil Dragons is probably one of the most original concepts that Toei ever did with Dragon Ball. With that being said, I can’t imagine it being revisited for the foreseeable future. Sure, we got to see Toriyama’s take on Broly, but the Evil Dragons aren’t nearly as popular. I think we’d be more likely to see Cooler before that.

Maekawa Atsushi actually details a lot of his ideology behind writing Dragon Ball GT here. There's some really good gems about just how he approached character development, too.

Fascinating, especially the bits about how why they chose Pan and Trunks as well as the people being brought back by the Dragon Balls but having to rebuild the world on their own. I love bit about kids not being able to relate to using the DB's to solve their troubles.

[Lord Beerus]

Exactly, it's not about the damn tropes, it is and will always be about story. That's what keeps people coming back for more.

I'm denying the importance of the story. I'm just saying the audience for which Dragon Ball became immensely popular from just didn't come across that kind story, character and aesthetic before because it's influence came from a genre Weekly Shonen Jump had barely scratched the surface of.

I can speak from mine. No amount of cool art will keep audience enthralled for hundreds of episodes and decades.

Gundam, Super Sentai and Transformers would disagree with that.

You don't need to know the tropes or the genre for DB to hold any appeal. It's the simplicity of the story and likability of the characters. Playing with tropes is fun for the audience but it's not the draw. It's the things that people emotionally invest in that draw audiences even if that emotion is "Fuck yeah!"

Please for the love of god, don't lose the forest from the trees. I know you have a hard time with that.

That's the point I've been trying to make that seems to constantly go either over your head or in one ear and out the other.

When a lot people first read/watched Dragon Ball, they didn't know this kind of storytelling combined with the kind aesthetic it had was possible. They didn't know that a simple character like Goku could be written in the way he was -- despite the fact that he himself along with several other characters were stock character archetypes -- and still be interesting for a long as the story went on. Characters like Goku are a dime a dozen in the Wuxia genre, but it was Toriyama's affinity to old school martial arts film, that lead to him taking fairly obscure concepts and imagery and applying them in a shonen manga, within a magazine that had only one other manga going on at the time doing the same thing.

Nostalgia also plays a part in this, as most casual viewers only watched Dragon Ball and a few other anime after that, making their pool of reference incredibly shallow.

[ABED]

Gundam, Super Sentai and Transformers would disagree with that.

yes, there are cool robots, but audiences still like the characters, especially Transformers. Christ, that's why there was such a damn uproar over Optimus Prime's death. They tried to put someone else in leader role and it didn't work. Surprise, surprise! People love stories. Getting emotionally invested in a story is essentially a high. They don't like when another character takes over the lead role.

When a lot people first read/watched Dragon Ball, they didn't know this kind of storytelling combined with the kind aesthetic it had was possible. They didn't know that a simple character like Goku could be written in the way he was -- despite the fact that he himself along with several other characters were stock character archetypes -- and still be interesting for a long as the story went on. Characters like Goku are a dime a dozen in the Wuxia genre, but it was Toriyama's affinity to old school martial arts film, the lead to him taking fairly obscure concepts and imagery and applying them in a shonen manga, within a magazine that had only one other manga going on at the time doing the same thing.

That's NOT the point you were trying to make as my point is not the one you think it is. You don't have to be familiar with the archetypes for it to work. Even if you do, it still works despite having seen similar characters before. The true genius of DB isn't that it's completely different because it's not, it's genius is he took archetypes, added his unique voice and created characters and stories audiences invested in. George Lucas did the same thing in Star Wars. He took archetypes and created memorable characters that the audience invested in.

Nostalgia also plays a part in this, as most casual viewers only watched Dragon Ball and a few other anime after that, making their pool of reference incredibly shallow.

A small part.

I'm denying the importance of the story.

You have at nearly every step of this conversation. It's the element you've brought up the least in relation to why DB is so popular.

[Lord Beerus]

Gundam, Super Sentai and Transformers would disagree with that.

yes, there are cool robots, but they still like the characters, especially Transformers. Christ, that's why there was such a damn uproar over Optimus Prime's death. They tried to put someone else in leader role and it didn't work. Surprise, surprise!

The idea of killing off a character for real was an incredibly foreign in western animated TV show aimed at children. Regardless, the appeal of Transformers is still a purely aesthetic one. No more is that better seen than with the live action films where, as visually repulsive and horribly written as those movies were, they still made billions of dollars. Why? Ridiculously overly designed giant machine beating each other up is a superficially entertaining concept. And the only aspect of them fans refused to budge on was Peter Cullen not voicing Optimus Prime.

That's NOT the point you were trying to make as my point is not the one you think it is. You don't have to be familiar with the archetypes for it to work. Even if you do, it still works despite having seen similar characters before. The true genius of DB isn't that it's completely different because it's not, it's genius is he took archetypes, added his unique voice and created characters and stories audiences invested in. George Lucas did the same thing in Star Wars. He took archetypes and created memorable characters that the audience invested in.

I just made the additional comment that what Dragon Ball took inspiration from was from fairly obscure works in a genre that shonen manga/anime didn't cover a lot... which is true. Which, coincidentally, gave Dragon Ball the image, in specificity of shonen manga/anime, of being something fresh. Some stories benefit from this and others didn't have to. But Dragon Ball was one of the cases where that did play in its favour.

A small part.

A BIG part. You still have people who say Dragon Ball Z is the greatest anime ever.

You have at nearly every step of this conversation. It's the element you've brought up the least in relation to why DB is so popular.

I'm only pointing out how the story took influence from a genre that was fairly obscure in the world of WSJ... which it was. How that would play it is an entirely different ball game. That comes down to Toriyama's skills as manga and the success of Dr Slump never put that into question. Taking about the influence Toriyama had when crafting Dragon Ball is important when you take into consideration what kind narrative it is. Just because I'm saying that Dragon Ball takes ideas and even characters wholesale from other martial arts stories, doesn't make Dragon Ball any less of the simple and fun romp that it was

I don't know how you inferred me talking about where Dragon Ball stemmed from is me playing down the story, when I've mentioned several times that the simple and whimsical storytelling infused with the man basic tropes of Wuxia and imagery of kung-fu movie is what gave Dragon Ball it's distinctive appeal. The quality of the story is important, but it's just as important who you're adverting it to and how it's being advertised.

[Skar]

The difference is that star wars (from what I've heard and read) was all over the place, there was no consistency in what they were doing. With modern DB, they've clearly got a winning formula on their hands with the following:

Goku and Vegeta as the main characters.
Keeping everyone else involved through secondary roles.
Epic fights being front and center.
Cool looking villains with interesting abilities.
Nostalgia being a big part of things.

We may not always agree with the franchise's direction (I know I've said plenty about it), but there's no denying that it works. Even fans who criticize it can still enjoy what it has to offer. With star wars, you've got a good number of fans who outright hate its current direction, something modern DB hasn't had to deal with.

I gave the example of Star Wars because its revival was one of the most successful of all time and Force Awakens grossed over $2 billion. I should've clarified but my point was that a series could be perform well for the first few years but start to decline once it loses what led to that success. SW and many other popular franchises bank on fans being excited for their return. Once the initial excitement dies down, fans might be more critical and higher expectations than mainly fan service. That's why I believe revivals don't last long or at least I can't think of any lasting more than a few years.

In DB's case, it wasn't just the excitement of the series returning but also that Toriyama was involved. The same could be said for One Piece films with Oda's involvement. They had a higher production value which I assume because Toei knew they would perform better than previous One Piece films. In Japan, it seems the audience holds a continuation of a long running story in more value when the original author is also working on it than the studio doing something on their own. That's why I said it's possible they only intended GT to be a relatively short extra sequel because they may have known it wouldn't last long without Toriyama's involvement.

It feels like some fans believe they can churn out any idea and it'll succeed with enough fan service. It works in some cases but it doesn't mean it will continue with the same results for years to come and won't get old. Toriyama has rejected some of the suggestions he was given and there are several obvious ideas he could use like reboot another movie villain or one of the ones we've seen used in Heroes. I liked some of them so I'm not saying they're bad just that he may have already considered them and decided to something else since he's apparently taking his time on the next story.

[Matches Malone]

I gave the example of Star Wars because its revival was one of the most successful of all time and Force Awakens grossed over $2 billion.

My point was that a series could perform well for the first few years but start to decline once it loses what led to that success.

It's possible they intended GT to be a relatively short extra sequel because they may have known it wouldn't last long without Toriyama's involvement.

It feels like some fans believe they can churn out any idea and it'll succeed with enough fan service.

I agree with these points, but I do have a few comments on them. The difference between DB and Star Wars is that SW declined immediately after FA. FA made 2.1 billion, followed by a massive 700 million decline for TLJ, which was then followed by the latest movie which barely crossed a billion. There's also been a massive decline in SW merchandise sales from year to year. Not only did each DB movie make more than the last, with Broly making more than BOG and RF combined, its overall sales have been going up considerably each year.

Revivals that don't live up to expectations fall apart pretty fast, as seen with Star Wars. DB's revival however, is on its 8th year, with no signs of stopping. I've ripped modern DB apart countless times (despite BOG being a masterpiece), but it's clear that its success at this point has nothing to do with fans just being hyped about DB being back, they genuinely enjoy what it's doing. Even its critics, such as myself, find it enjoyable despite its flaws. I just can't see modern DB doing anything so bad that it will result in a huge number of fans turning their backs on it, at least not to the point where everything has to be reevaluated like what's going on at Disney with Star wars.

From what I understand about anime production, they never have a set number of episodes in mind, they figure it out as they go along. For example, if by the 30th episode the show is a big success, it's likely to go on for a long time. If it isn't, then the companies involved start looking at ways to end it.

It's been working for 8 years now. Between the dragon room, Toyotaro, and Toriyama's editors, their main goal (as stated by them) is to bring what fans want to life. The goal of the dragon room is to figure out what's popular in and outside of Japan. Toyotaro talks to fans on Twitter, resulting in Vegetto being included in Super. Toriyama's editors convinced him to bring Broly in due to him being a fan favorite. Star Wars started out like this with FA and Rouge One, both playing things safe and generally giving fans what they wanted. Once Ryan Johnson got involved and tried to be creative, things completely fell apart and never recovered. I honestly have no idea how bad the last Jedi was, but I'll always take creativity over fan service, even if the end result isn't perfect. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority who prefer creativity over nostalgia.

[ABED]

The idea of killing off a character for real was an incredibly foreign in western animated TV show aimed at children. Regardless, the appeal of Transformers is still a purely aesthetic one. No more is that better seen than with the live action films where, as visually repulsive and horribly written as those movies were, they still made billions of dollars. Why? Ridiculously overly designed giant machine beating each other up is a superficially entertaining concept. And the only aspect of them fans refused to budge on was Peter Cullen not voicing Optimus Prime.

I'm convinced now because you said so that it's purely an aesthetic one, regardless of having talked to plenty of fans about this very subject and if fans refused to budge on Peter Cullen, how do you not see the very simple inference that people are emotionally attached to his character?

A BIG part. You still have people who say Dragon Ball Z is the greatest anime ever.

Sure, they couldn't possibly legitimately believe that.

I don't know how you inferred me talking about where Dragon Ball stemmed from is me playing down the story, when I've mentioned several times that the simple and whimsical storytelling infused with the man basic tropes of Wuxia and imagery of kung-fu movie is what gave Dragon Ball it's distinctive appeal. The quality of the story is important, but it's just as important who you're adverting it to and how it's being advertised.

Because of your vehement disagreement that it's not about the characters that they are just one element. Story and characters are inseparable.

[Skar]

From what I understand about anime production, they never have a set number of episodes in mind, they figure it out as they go along. For example, if by the 30th episode the show is a big success, it's likely to go on for a long time. If it isn't, then the companies involved start looking at ways to end it.

I could be wrong but from what I've read, some anime could be greenlit for a few cours/seasons. GT had 64 episode which I think would be a 5 cour anime like FMA:B and not exactly an odd number of episodes indicating it was ended abruptly. We all know that rumors sometimes spread on the internet could eventually be treated as "common knowledge" when there's no actual evidence for them. I'm not trying to make sure this wasn't one of those cases because I couldn't find anything when I googled if GT ended earlier than expected besides opinions on forums.

I looked at Toei's IR library and the farthest it goes back is to 2006. Checking that year, DB was their second best performing franchise. If the series was still successful that many years later, I assume it would still perform well the following few years after DBZ ended. I don't know how likely revenue from the series could've declined so much the following few quarters after DBZ ended that they decided to drop GT and then revenue recovered on its own years later. I believe GT still would've performed better some of their other longer running franchises so it's possible the decision to end it could've been a creative choice. A lot of people assume a successful franchise will get milked dry but that hasn't always been the case because it could hurt the franchise in the longrun if it ends on a bad note.

It's been working for 8 years now. Between the dragon room, Toyotaro, and Toriyama's editors, their main goal (as stated by them) is to bring what fans want to life. The goal of the dragon room is to figure out what's popular in and outside of Japan. Toyotaro talks to fans on Twitter, resulting in Vegetto being included in Super. Toriyama's editors convinced him to bring Broly in due to him being a fan favorite. Star Wars started out like this with FA and Rouge One, both playing things safe and generally giving fans what they wanted. Once Ryan Johnson got involved and tried to be creative, things completely fell apart and never recovered. I honestly have no idea how bad the last Jedi was, but I'll always take creativity over fan service, even if the end result isn't perfect. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority who prefer creativity over nostalgia.

I agree the strategy had worked so far but I think the disagreement is how long it could realistically last for with the result. In terms of fan service, we've seen secondary characters fighting again, return of the most popular manga villain with a new form, Freeza teaming up with Goku, return of Future Trunks, an evil Goku, Vegetto and Gogeta, reboot of Broly, callbacks to iconic scenes, etc.

There has been a lot of fan service and ideas in recent video games that didn't make it into DBS so it seems they're not including everything that comes to mind. Like almost everything, there are limits to how many times something could be effective before it has diminishing returns. I'm curious what ideas or fan service you think they could use that would be as successful as what we're seen already and could last long? I hear a lot of suggestions that I feel would only appeal to a smaller audience or work for a short spin-off but not a long running series.

[Matches Malone]

I googled if GT ended earlier than expected besides opinions on forums.

I don't know how likely revenue from the series could've declined so much the following few quarters after DBZ ended that they decided to drop GT and then revenue recovered on its own years later.

No one official ever said anything on the matter.

The franchise's revenue was pretty much dead from 1997-2002, as there were no new products being put out in the market. That changed starting in 2002. We got quality video games on the Ps2 and Nintendo systems from Dimps and Spike, the original manga was being republished in a high quality format with new cover art by Toriyama himself, and the anime was being released on home video for the first time in the form of the dragon boxes (and single sets later on). This period roughly lasted from 2002-2007, after that though, things started going downhill again. The anime's single sets were wrapping up, so there was no new animated content to put out on home video. This led to Toei asking Toriyama to help them produce a new show, which he declined, resulting in Kai being made. That didn't work out so it was cancelled prematurely. The games' quality weren't up to the standards set by the Ps2 era or other games being published at the time, resulting in declining sales and declining budgets for future games. BOG more or less saved the franchise in 2013, and the rest is history.

[Skar]

The franchise's revenue was pretty much dead from 1997-2002, as there were no new products being put out in the market. That changed starting in 2002.

Do we have evidence of this? I ask because their IR library only goes back to 2006 so I curious how people came to this conclusion. You said things went downhill after 2007 but according to their financial reports DB was their highest earning franchise in overseas film and licensing between 2007-2011 and top three in domestically. It was still earning more than many of their ongoing franchises.

I'm aware they wanted to increase merchandise and licensing which is why asked Toriyama to be involved in 2008. Wanting to temporarily revival the series to drive sales and intending for it to go on indefinitely are two different things. As far back as I can see on their site, DB was one of their highest earning franchises yet they never considered making their own anime without Toriyama in the decades since it ended. If Toriyama decided not to be involved with BoG, they may have only intended it to be a standalone movie like many other classic anime series have had many years later. What I've been trying to get at is that Toei might refuse to make a long running series without Toriyama out of respect for him and his manga.

[ABED]

Star Wars started out like this with FA and Rouge One, both playing things safe and generally giving fans what they wanted. Once Ryan Johnson got involved and tried to be creative, things completely fell apart and never recovered. I honestly have no idea how bad the last Jedi was, but I'll always take creativity over fan service, even if the end result isn't perfect.

This is a misreading of the situation. Fans claimed fanservice is what they wanted but TLJ was not where things ran off the rails. JJ doesn't know how to tell a story. If there's a problem with the third act, there's a huge chance there's a problem with the 1st act. The entire purpose of the first act is to set things up with the eye towards how you will pay them off. He only cares about setting up mysteries. Fanservice has its limits. It's like a drug high. Eventually you come crashing down and addicts grow more and more frustrated when they don't get their fix as they chase the same high but are unable to do so. There's also a fair amount of desire for characters to be badasses which the narrative didn't allow the audience to indulge in.

DB seems to buck the trend of people not liking the revival. By and large it seems to have gone over well with mainstream DB fans.

[Matches Malone]

Do we have evidence of this? I ask because their IR library only goes back to 2006.

If it exists I don't have it. It's based on what I've read over the years about DB's financial performance leading up to its semi-revival in 2002.

[Lord Beerus]

I'm convinced now because you said so that it's purely an aesthetic one, regardless of having talked to plenty of fans about this very subject and if fans refused to budge on Peter Cullen, how do you not see the very simple inference that people are emotionally attached to his character?

Because the character is not a voice. I mean, fans had no issue with Optimus Prime being voiced by other actors in other Transformers TV shows. And considering Optimus Prime looked majorly different in the movie (and would be later written majorly different), the only saving grace fans would have in the live action films feeling like Transformers from their childhood is if at the very least one of the main characters at least had one of the original voice actors.

Transformers was created for the sole purpose of selling cool looking toys to children. And Optimus Prime was specifically designed to be the coolest looking toy for children to buy. If you take that cooling looking toy away from children, especially in a circumstance where death is completely foreign to them in Western animation, naturally they are going to get upset because they figure they can't play with their favourite toy any more.

Sure, they couldn't possibly legitimately believe that.

You'll be shocked how many people legitimately believe that all over the internet.

Because of your vehement disagreement that it's not about the characters that they are just one element. Story and characters are inseparable.

Because the characters are one of them element to constructing a narrative that people can get invested into. It's not just enough to write a character, you need to make the story you want them complement one another. It's the same thing when factor the tone, setting and themes. Everything needs to compliment each other.

Just because they are one of the key elements, doesn't make them any less significant.

[ABED]

I'm convinced now because you said so that it's purely an aesthetic one, regardless of having talked to plenty of fans about this very subject and if fans refused to budge on Peter Cullen, how do you not see the very simple inference that people are emotionally attached to his character?

Because the character is not a voice. I mean, fans had no issue with Optimus Prime being voiced by other actors in other Transformers TV shows. And considering Optimus Prime looked majorly different in the movie (and would be later written majorly different), the only saving grace fans would have in the live action films feeling like Transformers from their childhood is if at the very least one of the main characters at least had one of the original voice actors.

Transformers was created for the sole purpose of selling cool looking toys to children. And Optimus Prime was specifically designed to be the coolest looking toy for children to buy. If you take that cooling looking toy away from children, especially in a circumstance where death is completely foreign to them in Western animation, naturally they are going to get upset because they figure they can't play with their favourite toy any more.

Sure, they couldn't possibly legitimately believe that.

You'll be shocked how many people legitimately believe that all over the internet.

Because of your vehement disagreement that it's not about the characters that they are just one element. Story and characters are inseparable.

Because the characters are one of them element to constructing a narrative that people can get invested into. It's not just enough to write a character, you need to make the story you want them complement one another. It's the same thing when factor the tone, setting and themes. Everything needs to compliment each other.

Just because they are one of the key elements, doesn't make them any less significant.

I was there and yes, people have issues with other people voicing Optimus and then put up a stink when their hero was killed off. If it were simply a matter of shocked that death generally didn't happen in US kids' programming, then the reaction would be surprise, not sadness. I'm well aware of the reasons why Transformers was created but your understanding of why it connected with people whereas most other properties of the time didn't to this extent is lacking. Stories matter to people. Hell, it's why those shows existed because even toylines need stories to help sell the merchandise. And even your reply hints at kids emotionally connecting with the character, yet for some odd reason you don't get it. If they didn't emotionally connect, why would they give a damn if Cullen played OP? The voice is important, especially in voice acting.

And who are you to say they can't legitimately think it's the best?

The story is what characters do and say. The two are inseparable. The tone comes out of the characters and the story. Setting and themes aren't what draw in viewers. Sure things need to compliment each other, but they aren't all given equal weight.

[LoganForkHands73]

I'm convinced now because you said so that it's purely an aesthetic one, regardless of having talked to plenty of fans about this very subject and if fans refused to budge on Peter Cullen, how do you not see the very simple inference that people are emotionally attached to his character?

Because the character is not a voice. I mean, fans had no issue with Optimus Prime being voiced by other actors in other Transformers TV shows. And considering Optimus Prime looked majorly different in the movie (and would be later written majorly different), the only saving grace fans would have in the live action films feeling like Transformers from their childhood is if at the very least one of the main characters at least had one of the original voice actors.

Transformers was created for the sole purpose of selling cool looking toys to children. And Optimus Prime was specifically designed to be the coolest looking toy for children to buy. If you take that cooling looking toy away from children, especially in a circumstance where death is completely foreign to them in Western animation, naturally they are going to get upset because they figure they can't play with their favourite toy any more.

OK, even as a non-Transformers fan I can tell you that's quite an insulting assumption to make about Transformers fans. People love Optimus Prime as a character as much as they do for his design. The (weirdly informal) wiki focuses far more on the series' narrative and characters than the toys. It's very demeaning to say that the only reason people got sad over his death was because "they can't play with their favourite toy anymore". What does that even mean? Are you saying that his animated self's death somehow erased all Optimus Prime action figures from existence?

The same roughly applies to Dragon Ball. There will always be people who watch things for superficial reasons without really engaging, that's kind of what pop culture phenomenology is all about. But those are the mums, dads and grandparents waiting for their kids to get off the TV so they can put their favourite show on. They only understand Goku in the vaguest possible terms as the orange, spiky-haired cartoon guy that screams a lot that their kids enjoy watching. The target audience of kids are much better at engaging with things than you give them credit for.

Why are you arguing for new characters while simultaneously diminishing the importance of them? Even as someone who's not totally against the idea of some kind of next gen sequel for DB, it's an odd angle to take in this debate.

[Lord Beerus]

I was there and yes, people have issues with other people voicing Optimus and then put up a stink when their hero was killed off. If it were simply a matter of shocked that death generally didn't happen in US kids' programming, then the reaction would be surprise, not sadness. I'm well aware of the reasons why Transformers was created but your understanding of why it connected with people whereas most other properties of the time didn't to this extent is lacking. Stories matter to people. Hell, it's why those shows existed because even toylines need stories to help sell the merchandise. And even your reply hints at kids emotionally connecting with the character, yet for some odd reason you don't get it. If they didn't emotionally connect, why would they give a damn if Cullen played OP? The voice is important, especially in voice acting.

Even when Peter Cullen wasn't voicing Optimus Prime fans still bought the toys and comic, and franchise was still making boatloads of money. The fans that give a shit about Optimus Prime being voiced by Peter Cullen are vastly outweighed by the people who invest in the franchise for purely aesthetic reason. Design a cool looking robot and kids and collectors will eat that shit for breakfast. Again, the success of the Michael Bay Transformers epitomise this point. You think even a fraction those billions of dollars of the films made was because of Peter Cullen voicing Optimus Prime? Or that people were invested in the story and characters? Fuck no. The casual moviegoer knows what kind of director Michael Bay is, and the casual audience are at least distinctly aware of how much of a mindless and soulless premise Transformers is, and they came to see giant robots beat the fuck out of each other amidst mass destruction and explosions.

And who are you to say they can't legitimately think it's the best?

Because it just isn't. It's like saying McDonalds is the best food in the world.

[ABED]

I was there and yes, people have issues with other people voicing Optimus and then put up a stink when their hero was killed off. If it were simply a matter of shocked that death generally didn't happen in US kids' programming, then the reaction would be surprise, not sadness. I'm well aware of the reasons why Transformers was created but your understanding of why it connected with people whereas most other properties of the time didn't to this extent is lacking. Stories matter to people. Hell, it's why those shows existed because even toylines need stories to help sell the merchandise. And even your reply hints at kids emotionally connecting with the character, yet for some odd reason you don't get it. If they didn't emotionally connect, why would they give a damn if Cullen played OP? The voice is important, especially in voice acting.

Even when Peter Cullen wasn't voicing Optimus Prime fans still bought the toys and comic, and franchise was still making boatloads of money. The fans that give a shit about Optimus Prime being voiced by Peter Cullen are vastly outweighed by the people who invest in the franchise for purely aesthetic reason. Design a cool looking robot and kids and collectors will eat that shit for breakfast. Again, the success of the Michael Bay Transformers epitomise this point. You think even a fraction those billions of dollars of the films made was because of Peter Cullen voicing Optimus Prime? Or that people were invested in the story and characters? Fuck no. The casual moviegoer knows what kind of director Michael Bay is, and the casual audience are at least distinctly aware of how much of a mindless and soulless premise Transformers is, and they came to see giant robots beat the fuck out of each other amidst mass destruction and explosions.

And who are you to say they can't legitimately think it's the best?

Because it just isn't. It's like saying McDonalds is the best food in the world.

"It JUST isn't." Very persuasive. That is so smug. People can't legitimately find DB to be the best just because you say so.

Design is important, but ever think people like the character? They like what he stands for. And TF was honestly often a better written cartoon than it had any reason to be. There's a whole episode that ends with a pacifist character lamenting the destruction of a forest in battle. The good guys won but at a heavy cost. Imagine a kids show not only having a pacifist character in a show whose appeal is fighting robots and then has them sigh over a pyrrhic victory.

I never once said or even implied Bayformers performed well because of Cullen, but the performance definitely matters to people. People don't fucking cry because they see something they don't usually see. They cry because they are emotionally invested. Why do you think toylines like TMNT and Transformers remain popular and stick with people, but He-Man and plenty of others haven't?

casual audience are at least distinctly aware of how much of a mindless and soulless

You're on a Dragon Ball forum!

[Lord Beerus]

OK, even as a non-Transformers fan I can tell you that's quite an insulting assumption to make about Transformers fans. People love Optimus Prime as a character as much as they do for his design. The (weirdly informal) wiki focuses far more on the series' narrative and characters than the toys. It's very demeaning to say that the only reason people got sad over his death was because "they can't play with their favourite toy anymore". What does that even mean? Are you saying that his animated self's death somehow erased all Optimus Prime action figures from existence?

Uh... yeah. That is what Hasbro was planning. To introduce a whole new line of toys after the movie.

And regardless of how paper thin the characters and plot are, the vast majority still invest Transformers purely for aesthetic reasons.

The same roughly applies to Dragon Ball. There will always be people who watch things for superficial reasons without really engaging, that's kind of what pop culture phenomenology is all about. But those are the mums, dads and grandparents waiting for their kids to get off the TV so they can put their favourite show on. They only understand Goku in the vaguest possible terms as the orange, spiky-haired cartoon guy that screams a lot that their kids enjoy watching. The target audience of kids are much better at engaging with things than you give them credit for.

Fair enough. But my cynicism isn't entirely unwarranted when they are so many different form of media that pray on the short attention spans and superficial attachment kids can have to products and rakes in a lot of money because of it.

Why are you arguing for new characters while simultaneously diminishing the importance of them? Even as someone who's not totally against the idea of some kind of next gen sequel for DB, it's an odd angle to take in this debate.

I only said that Dragon Ball debuting when it did played in the favour of the demographic that wasn't majorly exposed the genre that Dragon Ball bases itself in. Never did I characters aren't important. And yeah, there are many fans who have a superficial love for Dragon Ball. I think that's a shitty attitude to have, but that's the unfortunately reality among some fans... they just come for the spectacle.

Nowadays, the spectacle is most certainly the draw as character developments has practically disappeared and some fans haven't batted an eyelid to it. That's where my original argument stemmed from. It isn't that the characters aren't important, it that's there's nothing left to do with them beyond vapid "progression".

"It JUST isn't." Very persuasive. That is so smug. People can't legitimately find DB to be the best just because you say so.

Thanks for emphasising the word I never emphasised in the first place. As well as cutting out the parable I made, which emphasised the point that while Dragon Ball Z is fine at what it does, saying it's the best the genre can provide just smacks of ignorance, and comes back to previous point of how much of a small reference pool of anime you must have if you Dragon Ball Z serves as the frontier example for a genre that has lasted over 50 fucking years and produced thousands of different TV shows, OVA's and movies. If Dragon Ball Z is considered the greatest anime ever to someone, I will immediately question how much anime they've watched.

Design is important, but ever think people like the character? They like what he stands for. And TF was honestly often a better written cartoon than it had any reason to be. There's a whole episode that ends with a pacifist character lamenting the destruction of a forest in battle. The good guys won but at a heavy cost. Imagine a kids show not only having a pacifist character in a show whose appeal is fighting robots and then has them sigh over a pyrrhic victory.

I'm not denying people may like the character. I'm saying a vast majority of people who invest into the franchise do it to buy the cool looking toys. That's not a bad thing to say about a franchise that was created to sell toys to people. You dress that goal up as fancy as you want, but the endgame for Hasbro is for them to impress people with the design of the robots so that they can be bought. It's just like Power Rangers.

I never once said or even implied Bayformers performed well because of Cullen, but the performance definitely matters to people. People don't fucking cry because they see something they don't usually see. They cry because they are emotionally invested. Why do you think toylines like TMNT and Transformers remain popular and stick with people, but He-Man and plenty of others haven't?

The performance can matter, but in a live action film that has its main draw being their visuals, the performance becomes less of factor.

TMNT and Transformers stood mainly because of their concepts being so out there. Part of a franchise being successful is imprinting onto a young audience imagery they haven't seen before.

You're on a Dragon Ball forum!

And?

[goku the krump dancer]

How can you refute someone’s opinion like that? One Piece is considered the most successful anime of all time, at least in Japan exclusively I think and even if it is a more tightly nit story than Dragon Ball with more “fleshed out” ( I rude that term loosely) side characters that doesn’t mean that someone can’t prefer Dragon Ball over One Piece or any other Shonen Anime that might be out there. Because I know I damn sure Do!

There are plenty of folks here in the west who think Naruto is greatest thing ever and though I cringe when Hear it, I understand where they’re coming from.

Mortal Kombat fans think MK is the best fighting game out there, yet Street Fighter fans would beg to differ and so on. How can you question on invalidate what someone deems great

[ABED]

Uh... yeah. That is what Hasbro was planning. To introduce a whole new line of toys after the movie.

Logan meant that the kids who already had OP would still own OP.

TMNT and Transformers stood mainly because of their concepts being so out there. Part of a franchise being successful is imprinting onto a young audience imagery they haven't seen before.

People don't emotionally invest in concepts. That would have lasted a few years at most. People invested in those characters. Hell, as dumb as Power Rangers is, the audience invested in those characters as well.

And?

You're condescending remarks imply you look down on it things you deem mindless and soulless, but Dragon Ball is mostly mindless fun.

TMNT and Transformers stood mainly because of their concepts being so out there. Part of a franchise being successful is imprinting onto a young audience imagery they haven't seen before.

Imagery alone won't sustain for generations.

I'm denying people may like the character. I'm saying a vast majority of people who invest into the franchise do it to buy the cool looking toys. That's not a bad thing to say about a franchise that was created to sell toys to people. You dress that goal up as fancy as you want, but the endgame for Hasbro is for them to impress people with the design of the robots so that they can be bought. It's just like Power Rangers.

Yet the need for TV series tells me otherwise. A cool design alone isn't enough.