Your ideal Dragon Ball sequel.

[Lord Beerus]

"Many" is vague and unhelpful.

I never said "all", so you didn't have credible point of contention. And I can't give you any specific numbers.

Why bother with the expense and time and effort when you can just put the commerical on several times a day instead of one single timeslot.

By 1984, U.S. regulators had removed many of the restrictions regarding the placement of promotional content within children's television programming. That cleared the way for Transformers.

People can still invest in a story regardless of the reason the story was created.

I'm not saying they can't get invested. I'm just saying the large majority of the investment (if not all of it) in Transformers is superficial and the fandom embrace that because they know there's nothing wrong with buying cool looking toys for recreational or collecting purposes.

Before the toys were turned into TV shows, they still had tie in stories that either came in the form of comics or little blurbs on the back of the box because people want to know the story. Who's the good guy and the bad guy? Why go through any of that if it was just about appearane?

Additional exposure. If you can't watch the TV show or the movies, you can read the comics for the same story. Much like how merchandise driven franchises in Japan always get a manga and/or anime. I mean, look as what's going on with Super Dragon Ball Heroes...

[JulieYBM]

The Anime Machine: A Media Theory of Animation by Thomas Lamarre does a great job of explaining media mix, a format pioneered by Tezuka Osamu in the 1960s for his Tetsuwan Atom cartoon. I suggest reading it (I need to re-read it myself). Japanese cartoons--especially today--are a major media push. Cartoons like Dragon Ball promote a comic or video game, which itself ties in on multiple levels to multiple forms of media. It's a perpetuating machine.

[ABED]

I never said "all", so you didn't have credible point of contention. And I can't give you any specific numbers.

Just furthering my point. Many to you may not be a lot to others. It also could mean numerous but not enough to make much of a difference..

Additional exposure. If you can't watch the TV show or the movies, you can read the comics for the same story. Much like how merchandise driven franchises in Japan always get a manga and/or anime. I mean, look as what's going on with Super Dragon Ball Heroes...

That exposure isn't necessary if aesthetics is all that matters. Every franchise is pretty much driven by merch. It's where the money is but you still need a story people invest in to care

By 1984, U.S. regulators had removed many of the restrictions regarding the placement of promotional content within children's television programming. That cleared the way for Transformers.

I've known that for years. It's like you are so eager to show off how many facts you know you don't stop to think whether they are important to the discussion. There are less expensive ways to advertise. If all that matters is how it looks, why hire writers, why create backstories, why tell stories at all?

People yearn for stories. It's practically coded into our DNA.

[Lord Beerus]

Just furthering my point. Many to you may not be a lot to others. It also could mean numerous but not enough to make much of a difference..

That doesn't refute my point that the sex appeal of the female characters alone brought in a lot more readers. Hell, it got to the point where Betty and Veronica got their own spin-off comic and it outsold Archie for a time.

That exposure isn't necessary if aesthetics is all that matters. Every franchise is pretty much driven by merch. It's where the money is but you still need a story people invest in to care.

The aesthetic still needs to actually seen. And not every franchise is merchandise driven.

I've known that for years. It's like you are so eager to show off how many facts you know you don't stop to think whether they are important to the discussion. There are less expensive ways to advertise. If all that matters is how it looks, why hire writers, why create backstories, why tell stories at all?

To have an excuse to sell toys to more people. Hasbro know and the fandom knows, and neither of them care that much.

People yearn for stories. It's practically coded into our DNA.

And some people just live to embrace consumerism.

[ABED]

You don't need an excuse to sell toys to kids. Do you remember what it was like to be a kid at all?

The aesthetic still needs to actually seen.

And the most cost effective way is a TV show?

And some people just live to embrace consumerism.

Entire landfills are filled with toys from movies and shows kids didn't like. People don't buy shit from shows they don't care about no matter how cool it appears.

LEGO was near bankruptcy once upon a time and what kept it afloat and saved it (aside from of course better corporate management) was lines like Bionical and Star Wars which of course come with stories.

[Lord Beerus]

You don't need an excuse to sell toys to kids. Do you remember what it was like to be a kid at all?

Yes. I remember MANY kids, myself included, getting suckered into the huge Beyblade craze in the early 2000s because of how cool it looked on the TV show, regardless of how dumb the plot was, how paper thin the characters were and how blatantly the show was advertising new toys.

And the most cost effective way is a TV show?

If they could afford it, they'd do. Especially once it became apparent they would be a huge return in the initial investment.

Entire landfills are filled with toys from movies and shows kids didn't like. People don't buy shit from shows they don't care about no matter how cool it appears.

And yet Transformers has become a multi-billion franchise on the foundation of selling toys to a fandom that know their being sold toys towards.

[ABED]

The question isn't one of affordability, it's about ROI. The reason is because people like stories! The best way to get people to buy is to get them to emotionally invest in the toyline. If ROI wasn't good, they wouldn't make a TV show regardless of it was affordable.

Yes. I remember MANY kids, myself included, getting suckered into the huge Beyblade craze in the early 2000s because of how cool it looked on the TV show, regardless of how dumb the plot was, how paper thin the characters were and how blatantly the show was advertising new toys.

Excuse me if I don't believe that a kid understand the idea of "paper thin" plot, much less needs one to emotionally invest. Christ, not even adults need a sophisticated plot to get attached. And it doesn't matter how blatantly the new toys are being advertised, if kids don't care, they won't want to buy.

And yet Transformers has become a multi-billion franchise on the foundation of selling toys to a fandom that know their being sold toys towards.

They're kids, they don't really know that nor care. They do know they enjoy watching the adventures of their favorite characters and playing with the toys of said characters.

[LoganForkHands73]

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".

OK, to give a more personal anecdote, when I was a little kid I was obsessed with Thomas the Tank Engine, a franchise about colourful talking trains with faces. On paper and often in practice, it's about as vapid and kiddish as you can get, even back when it was purely a literary property. I used to be severely embarrassed by my love for it, but recently looking back on it, I realise that there really wasn't anything to be too ashamed of. Because I wasn't just obsessed with the colourful trains and toys. If that was my only reason, I would have become a full on trainspotting degenerate (not the heroin-injecting Ewan McGregor kind), but I didn't because I wasn't interested so much in the trains. I loved and related to the characters and the stories the show and books told, as simplistic as they often were. There are episodes I still vividly remember to this day. Even with the merch-only characters, I was fascinated to figure out who the characters really were. There's something so pure and precious about that, looking back.

I don't think the genre plays that heavily into Dragon Ball's popularity, because when you look at it broadly, it doesn't really conform to any singular genre aside from the broadest terms of "shonen" and maybe "wuxia". In many ways, it's a completely unfocused hodgepodge. It's a "high fantasy martial arts" story as you call it one minute, then a slapstick comedy the next, then a science fiction space opera the next, etc etc. I find the "high fantasy" part quite debatable because Dragon Ball never took itself that seriously and its setting never had established rules. One minute it's an almost feudal setting full of anthropomorphic animals and dinosaurs, the next we're seeing advanced metropolises and godly domains. There was no great war that Goku was destined to fight, no lore that he had to live up to - he just tagged along with some girl to collect some wish orbs.

As I've admitted, there could be further stories that could be potentially told involving new characters and the Dragon Balls since they're a fairly unique fixture to this universe that's always been there. But the problem is, this was already done with GT: A Hero's Legacy, which I'm guessing you and a majority of people have forgotten about because it was mediocre and aside from a tiny bit of continuity with Pan and Goku Sr's cameo at the very end, there was nothing to latch onto except from the Dragon Balls and a much less interesting copy of Goku. As much as I'd like to think the franchise would go new places with new lead characters, we'd more likely just get more mediocre pony like that. And if you really believe the writing staff are creatively bankrupt with the old characters, who's to say they'd suddenly improve with new ones? The show has already proven that it can take "retired" characters like Android 17 and develop them further to the point where they become fan favourites. Most of the characters may just be hanging around without much to do, but there's still enjoyment to be had with them.

[Lord Beerus]

The question isn't one of affordability, it's about ROI. The reason is because people like stories! The best way to get people to buy is to get them to emotionally invest in the toyline. If ROI wasn't good, they wouldn't make a TV show regardless of it was affordable

People liked the look of the characters in the show. The Japanese Transformers animes and live action films of the franchise epitomise this more than any other entry in the franchise with their complete lack of tact in advertising shit to you combined with their terrible writing and bad storytelling in general. Are you really going to tell me that people liked the stories to Michael Bay's Transformers?

Excuse me if I don't believe that a kid understand the idea of "paper thin" plot.

Not all kids are that simple minded.

They're kids, they don't really know that nor care. They do know they enjoy watching the adventures of their favorite characters and playing with the toys of said characters.

Some of those kids have the capacity to pick how they're being marketed to. And the adults who also invest in the franchise (arguably just as much as children do) are full aware of this.

[ABED]

Not all kids are that simple minded.

Sure, 12 year olds are still kids, but things like Beyblade aimed at younger kids, kids whose tastes aren't that discerning.

The Japanese Transformers animes and live action films of the franchise epitomise this more than any other entry in the franchise with their complete lack of tact in advertising shit to you combined with their terrible writing and bad storytelling in general. Are you really going to tell me that people liked the stories to Michael Bay's Transformers?

Do you even understand what a target demo is? Transformers the cartoon in the 80s was aimed at kids. The films were aimed at teenagers and nostalgic 20 year olds who weren't playing with toys. They may not like Bay, but they like the characters.

Some of those kids have the capacity to pick how they're being marketed to.

What?

[Lord Beerus]

Sure, 12 year olds are still kids, but things like Beyblade aimed at younger kids, kids whose tastes aren't that discerning.

They at least have the capacity to decide for their own what's really visually stimulating enough for them and what bores them enough to change the channel.

Do you even understand what a target demo is? Transformers the cartoon in the 80s was aimed at kids. The films were aimed at teenagers and nostalgic 20 year olds who weren't playing with toys. They may not like Bay, but they like the characters.

The film were aimed at kids as well. I can (shamefully) speak from personal experience. There was tons of kids that went to watch those films. The demographic for Transformers has always been mainly children.

What?

Any time there is a "role call/introduction sequence" (something Transformers is infamous for) it was practically code "here are the new toys to buy". Some kids, myself included, picked that up over time.

[ABED]

They at least have the capacity to decide for their own what's really visually stimulating enough for them and what bores them enough to change the channel.

Visuals are not the only thing that stimulates them. yes, kids aren't entertained by just anything. Shocker, also doesn't contradict anything I've said.

The film were aimed at kids as well. I can (shamefully) speak from personal experience. There was tons of kids that went to watch those films. The demographic for Transformers has always been mainly children.

It's PG-13. Kids can come with adults, but having worked at a theater the summer the first transformers was released, it was mainly late teens early 20 somethings that went. If the films were aimed at the same target demo as the original series, it wouldn't have been PG-13. If they were aimed at children, Bay wouldn't have been hired.

Any time there is a "role call/introduction sequence" (something Transformers is infamous for) it was practically code "here are the new toys to buy". Some kids, myself included, picked that up over time.

Or it could be because they wanted the audience who might be tuning into the show for the first time to know who the characters are so that they will emotionally connect. Hard to emotionally connect with something if you don't know its name.

How old are you in this example?

[Lord Beerus]

Visuals are not the only thing that stimulates them. yes, kids aren't entertained by just anything. Shocker, also doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Visual aren't the only factor, but they are the biggest factor. For example, how many kid watched the trailer to Age Of Extinction, caught a glimpse of the Dinobots and wanted the watch the movie solely for that? Some kids can just be interested in one element, despite it be purely superficially driven by aesthetic. Transformers just exploits that.

It's PG-13. Kids can come with adults, but having worked at a theater the summer the first transformers was released, it was mainly late teens early 20 somethings that went. If the films were aimed at the same target demo as the original series, it wouldn't have been PG-13.

For me, it was mostly kids. But then again in the UK we kinda play it fast and loose with the ratings in cinemas.

[ABED]

Visuals are not the only thing that stimulates them. yes, kids aren't entertained by just anything. Shocker, also doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Visual aren't the only factor, but they are the biggest factor. For example, how many kid watched the trailer to Age Of Extinction, caught a glimpse of the Dinobots and wanted the watch the movie solely for that? Some kids can just be interested in one element, despite it be purely superficially driven by aesthetic. Transformers just exploits that.

It's PG-13. Kids can come with adults, but having worked at a theater the summer the first transformers was released, it was mainly late teens early 20 somethings that went. If the films were aimed at the same target demo as the original series, it wouldn't have been PG-13.

For me, it was mostly kids. But then again in the UK we kinda play it fast and loose with the ratings in cinemas.

But your example was limited to the times you went. I was there the entire theatrical run. I saw HUNDREDS of people flow into theaters.

Biggest factor? Based on what?

Visuals may be the thing that catches someone's attention but they don't keep it. It's like any kind of attraction.

[Lord Beerus]

But your example was limited to the times you went. I was there the entire theatrical run. I saw HUNDREDS of people flow into theaters.

And yet they would rate Bumblebee as a PG film in the UK.

Biggest factor? Based on what?

Based on how many toys they would release for characters who had little screentime, and fans would still buy them.

Visuals may be the thing that catches someone's attention but they don't keep it. It's like any kind of attraction.

Their attention is kept long enough for them to invest into buying the toys. Sometimes it'll only take 60 seconds. Whether that be in a movie or TV show.

Or it could be because they wanted the audience who might be tuning into the show for the first time to know who the characters are so that they will emotionally connect. Hard to emotionally connect with something if you don't know its name.

How old are you in this example?

You're giving them WAY too much credit. There were several occasions where characters would have different forms that served no purpose other than to show of they had a different form or would introduce themselves only to have little to no character. One particularly shameless moment that stuck in my head for years happened in one of the comics where twenty-eight different robots appeared and introduced themselves, only for a handful of them to be actually are important to the plot, and those handful to barely having any character at all.

I was 11 at the time.

[ABED]

Sometimes it'll only take 60 seconds.

And yet apparently Hasbro felt the need to turn it into a TV show and film series even though a short commerical is all it takes? If appearance is all it takes, then you don't need a 30 minute TV show.

You keep coming back with "I never said story and characters aren't important" and yet every single damn thing you've written places both low on the list of importance. Apparently the defining and most important characteristics of a franchise are visual aesthetics and genre. I think I'm finally tapping out because this has gone on way longer than it should have. Apparently all DB needs to have to qualify as DB is plot devices and a list of genre tropes. Characters aren't that important. They're interchangeable.

[Lord Beerus]

And yet apparently Hasbro felt the need to turn it into a TV show and film series even though a short commerical is all it takes? If appearance is all it takes, then you don't need a 30 minute TV show.

There was no artist integrity when it came to creating a Transformers TV show. It's entire existence was just to sell as many toys as possible.

You keep coming back with "I never said story and characters aren't important" and yet every single damn thing you've written places both low on the list of importance. Apparently the defining and most important characteristics of a franchise are visual aesthetics and genre. I think I'm finally tapping out because this has gone on way longer than it should have. Apparently all DB needs to have to qualify as DB is plot devices and a list of genre tropes. Characters aren't that important. They're interchangeable.

I never created a fucking list of the elements that made Dragon Ball successful from high importance to low importance. Everything was important.The circumstances surrounding Dragon Ball's debut in Japan and in the West... yeah that did play a big factor in popularity. You know what else played a big factor in it's popularity? The fact that Dragon Ball was fucking good.

As much you want to insinuate this, I've never even attempted to sweep Dragon Ball's quality under the rug. Dragon Ball was damn good at what it wanted to do and also benefited from exposure to an audience (shonen demographic) who hadn't really wet their appetite on a purely martial arts story. The aesthetic, the tone, setting, and themes... yeah, those did play a huge factor in giving Dragon Ball its unique distinction. And it helped that it came from a genre most people weren't exposed to. That doesn't take anything away from the importance characters or how much people grew attached them.

Some fans have a shallow love for Dragon Ball, but that doesn't negate how many other fans grow attached to the cast. Dragon Ball centres around martial arts because, guess what, the main characters are martial artists.

[JulieYBM]

Since we're getting into the commercial aspects of franchises, this paper on Toei Animation's PreCure series and how the animated series is designed to show off the merchandise is a really good read.

Hartzheim-2016-The_Journal_of_Popular_Culture[1]

In addition to being a popular television series, Smile Precure! can
also be considered a program length commercial or advertisement, also
known as a PLC, since it is essentially a television show created to sell
toys through its sponsor, Bandai Namco. Products in PLC shows are
collaboratively constructed and spread to a domestic Japanese audience
through a committee-centered model known in Japan as a media mix.
The media mix is a form of serial media production similar in concept
to what Henry Jenkins has identified as “transmedia,” though here the media mix relies less on “storytelling,” as in Jenkins’ original conception
of transmedia, and more on qualities that relate to producers’ and
consumers’ experience of the media in connection to the creation of
anime worlds and characters that revolve around elaborately crafted
toys. Anime has a particular ability to create a media experience
through its integration of media and toy products. The “magical girl
media mix” exemplified by Pretty Cure owes its financial and creative
successes to the convergence of multiple creators who use such sponsored
products as brainstorming and expressive tools.

The full article goes into much more depth. The writer shadowed Ootsuka Takashi and others during the production of Smile! PreCure and t he methodology can pretty much be seen in other franchises, too.

[Jord]

I don't know if a sequel is necessary. You can't go bigger than the end of Z with a guy that can blow up planets in seconds. Technically you can, but it loses impact. Super tried that fizzled out.

If you want to continue the story you should either severely power down the main cast, which feels like a cheat, or eliminate them by doing a time warp or something. Problem is that without Goku, Gohan or Vegeta, it doesn't really feel like Dragon Ball.

[Grimlock]

Problem is that without Goku, Gohan or Vegeta, it doesn't really feel like Dragon Ball.

Gohan and Vegeta don't appear until much later in the series. So tell me, if it "doesn't really feel" Dragon Ball without them, what the original Dragon Ball feels like exactly?

Also, within this context, what does "doesn't feel like Dragon Ball" even mean?