Does anyone else feel that much of the DB fandom enforces low standards?

[WittyUsername]

In many cases, lore can enhance the story being told by making the audience feel like they can actually live in that world.

Is that the reason given because I don't actually buy that. At most I get the idea that if you love a fictional world, you probably want to know more about it and even that has its limits.

People often do like to know more about fictional worlds that they love, yes. That’s why Middle Earth is such a popular setting that has its own made up languages.

[ABED]

In many cases, lore can enhance the story being told by making the audience feel like they can actually live in that world.

Is that the reason given because I don't actually buy that. At most I get the idea that if you love a fictional world, you probably want to know more about it and even that has its limits.

People often do like to know more about fictional worlds that they love, yes. That’s why Middle Earth is such a popular setting that has its own made up languages.

Middle Earth has its own made up languages because Tolkien was a linguist. He created a world for his languages to inhabit.

[WittyUsername]

Is that the reason given because I don't actually buy that. At most I get the idea that if you love a fictional world, you probably want to know more about it and even that has its limits.

People often do like to know more about fictional worlds that they love, yes. That’s why Middle Earth is such a popular setting that has its own made up languages.

Middle Earth has its own made up languages because Tolkien was a linguist. He created a world for his languages to inhabit.

My only point is that Middle Earth is a famous example of a fleshed out and detailed fictional world that people love. In any case, I’ve already agreed with you that lore alone does not make for a good story, but for many people, it can enhance a story that’s already good. In terms of modern Dragon Ball, I certainly don’t think the expansions it’s made to the lore are enough to salvage it, and I don’t even particularly like some of the new additions they’ve made.

[ABED]

I'm talking about lore for the sake of lore, not lore that accumulates as the results of exposition delivered naturally through the story and accumulates into what we think of as lore.

This is my honest belief that lore doesn't greatly enhance people's enjoyment of a story save for niche groups.

I certainly don’t think the expansions it’s made to the lore are enough to salvage it

Is the opposite even possible? Can expansions to lore ever be enough to salvage a story? What would that look like?

When you say you don't like modern additions to DB's lore, what are some examples?

[WittyUsername]

When you say you don't like modern additions to DB's lore, what are some examples?

I don’t like how Beerus played a hand in Freeza wiping out the Saiyans. That’s a completely unnecessary change that adds nothing to the story, other than suggesting that Beerus is the one responsible for all of the events of the series. I also don’t like the “S-Cells” nonsense, or the decision to give the Legendary Super Saiyan a name and backstory.

On a lesser note, I don’t care for the idea that Dr. Gero based #16 off his deceased son. That just seems like a lazy attempt to try and retroactively make Dr. Gero seem like a more complex character.

[ABED]

When you say you don't like modern additions to DB's lore, what are some examples?

I don’t like how Beerus played a hand in Freeza wiping out the Saiyans. That’s a completely unnecessary change that adds nothing to the story, other than suggesting that Beerus is the one responsible for all of the events of the series. I also don’t like the “S-Cells” nonsense, or the decision to give the Legendary Super Saiyan a name and backstory.

On a lesser note, I don’t care for the idea that Dr. Gero based #16 off his deceased son. That just seems like a lazy attempt to try and retroactively make Dr. Gero seem like a more complex character.

Agree on all this.

[LoganForkHands73]

I honestly don't think of Beerus's influences to past events as "lore", more of a running gag of throwaway comments to help demonstrate how petty he is. He suggested that Freeza wipe out the Saiyans purely because he couldn't be bothered to do it himself, he gouged King Kai's planet into its current miniature size because he lost a video game, sealed Elder Kaioshin in the Z-Sword for some petty slight, he smashed King Vegeta's head in over a pillow, etc. Either way, it helps to inform his silly characterisation so I'm cool with it. If anything, it's kind of like 'anti-lore' because it jabs at people who take the Dragon Ball universe too seriously.

#16's connection to Dr. Gero isn't explicitly stated anywhere in the manga, it's purely out-of-universe lore told by Toriyama in interviews (and FighterZ) so it doesn't impede the actual narrative at all. It's something you can totally ignore if you want to. Out of all the many interview tidbits, this one interests me most because even if it was likely never intended, you can see some sense behind it when you look back at the original story (#16's gentle personality, Gero's strange protectiveness of him, etc), but the manga's story works well with or without this information. In any case, it's interesting to see an author's interpretation of their own work, but it doesn't necessarily have to mould your view of it.

S-Cells are kinda stupid though, and this is coming from someone who doesn't mind Midichlorians.

[MyVisionity]

No I mean it isn’t important as it is just exposition. Stories are about emotion not information. Exposition is only important in so far as it sets the relevant information for some future payoff.

A story is about whatever the author wants it to be.

if an author chooses exposition over emotion one wonders why they chose fiction writer as a profession. And stories are written for the purpose of emotionally connecting to and entertaining the audience.

Not all stories have to be personal or make an emotional connection with the audience. They just have to be interesting in some way. Characters are important but not always the most important parts of the story. Some stories just exist to make you think or to use your imagination. Some are about learning.

[ABED]

If the story is primarily about learning, it's the wrong medium otherwise why choose fiction? The most important aspect of any story is the characters/story. The entire purpose of storytelling is about emotional connection. What writer uses fiction not to create characters the audience can emotionally connect with but inform people about something? Why not use a documentary if that's your primary goal?

[MyVisionity]

If the story is primarily about learning, it's the wrong medium otherwise why choose fiction? The most important aspect of any story is the characters/story. The entire purpose of storytelling is about emotional connection. What writer uses fiction not to create characters the audience can emotionally connect with but inform people about something? Why not use a documentary if that's your primary goal?

There are many children's stories that are written to teach lessons. The story might be entertaining, but the characters themselves don't amount to much, because it's all about the lesson being taught. Same with a lot of mythology and folklore. The audience doesn't always need to invest emotionally into a character. The characters sometimes just exist to fulfill a role in the story, and not much more.

If it's an ongoing series then yes, maybe characters and emotions carry a greater importance. It also varies between different mediums like film, television, literature, etc.

[ABED]

If the story is primarily about learning, it's the wrong medium otherwise why choose fiction? The most important aspect of any story is the characters/story. The entire purpose of storytelling is about emotional connection. What writer uses fiction not to create characters the audience can emotionally connect with but inform people about something? Why not use a documentary if that's your primary goal?

There are many children's stories that are written to teach lessons. The story might be entertaining, but the characters themselves don't amount to much, because it's all about the lesson being taught. Same with a lot of mythology and folklore. The audience doesn't always need to invest emotionally into a character. The characters sometimes just exist to fulfill a role in the story, and not much more.

If it's an ongoing series then yes, maybe characters and emotions carry a greater importance. It also varies between different mediums like film, television, literature, etc.

You're big example is children's books? What books are you talking about?

The audience does need to emotionally invest or the lesson won't stick. This includes myth and folklore. Yes the ancient Greeks wanted to impart lessons but to do that they had to put the audience in the shoes of the protagonist so they would truly grasp what it means to have hubris bite them in the ass and other lessons. Why should I give a shit about the lesson if I'm not emotionally invested in their journey?

Ask yourself if they are trying to primarily impart lessons, why not be direct and tell them the lesson? Why tell it in the form of a narrative?

Can you give any specific examples of the kinds of stories you're talking about?

[WittyUsername]

I honestly don't think of Beerus's influences to past events as "lore", more of a running gag of throwaway comments to help demonstrate how petty he is. He suggested that Freeza wipe out the Saiyans purely because he couldn't be bothered to do it himself, he gouged King Kai's planet into its current miniature size because he lost a video game, sealed Elder Kaioshin in the Z-Sword for some petty slight, he smashed King Vegeta's head in over a pillow, etc. Either way, it helps to inform his silly characterisation so I'm cool with it. If anything, it's kind of like 'anti-lore' because it jabs at people who take the Dragon Ball universe too seriously.

I just hate the idea that Beerus is behind everything that happens in the story. It’s such a lazy and cheap attempt at building up his importance. Also, having Freeza destroy Vegeta because some lazy God told him to do so kind of diminishes Freeza as a villain.

[ABED]

That's not the kind of thing I think about when I think "lore" but regardless it's a terrible idea. I don't like the whole "it's all connected" phenomena I see in sequels, like this or in the last 007 movie where Blofeld is revealed as the man behind everything. Can't Bond just have a bunch of disconnected adventures? Can't Beerus and Freeza be two antagonists without some prior connection? Can't Terry and Bruce have a connection without being related? Can't Rey just be a nobody instead of a Palpatine?

[LoganForkHands73]

I honestly don't think of Beerus's influences to past events as "lore", more of a running gag of throwaway comments to help demonstrate how petty he is. He suggested that Freeza wipe out the Saiyans purely because he couldn't be bothered to do it himself, he gouged King Kai's planet into its current miniature size because he lost a video game, sealed Elder Kaioshin in the Z-Sword for some petty slight, he smashed King Vegeta's head in over a pillow, etc. Either way, it helps to inform his silly characterisation so I'm cool with it. If anything, it's kind of like 'anti-lore' because it jabs at people who take the Dragon Ball universe too seriously.

I just hate the idea that Beerus is behind everything that happens in the story. It’s such a lazy and cheap attempt at building up his importance. Also, having Freeza destroy Vegeta because some lazy God told him to do so kind of diminishes Freeza as a villain.

Fair enough, but I think it's like an early Dragon Ball-style joke that's not meant to be over-thought. Of course the Freeza one is most controversial, understandably, but looking back at the original scene, it seems to be more the case that Freeza's choice to destroy Planet Vegeta was entirely his own (as was always said to be the case, because of his paranoia of a Saiyan uprising/the Super Saiyan legend), but Beerus approved of it either way. He implies that he was thinking about destroying it for a while, probably because of King Vegeta's disrespect, but Freeza destroying it for his own reasons was just convenient for him and saved him a job.

The rest are less of a big deal. The monster that sealed Elder Kai in the Z-Sword was always an unresolved loose end, and when you think about it, it's a pretty genius move for Beerus in hindsight - sealing your own linked half away so that he never dies, ergo you never die. It's safe to say that King Kai's planet was something that nobody really questioned but it's a cute detail. Compared to how unrealistically the immortality of the gods is usually portrayed in Dragon Ball (i.e. Shin still acting like a green rookie despite being literally millions of years old), the idea that Beerus met all of these other important characters in his long, long life makes sense. And in any case, it establishes who Beerus is under all the quirks: he appears out of nowhere, carelessly leaves devastation to your whole life, then moves on.

[Planetnamek]

That's not the kind of thing I think about when I think "lore" but regardless it's a terrible idea. I don't like the whole "it's all connected" phenomena I see in sequels, like this or in the last 007 movie where Blofeld is revealed as the man behind everything. Can't Bond just have a bunch of disconnected adventures? Can't Beerus and Freeza be two antagonists without some prior connection? Can't Terry and Bruce have a connection without being related? Can't Rey just be a nobody instead of a Palpatine?

I didn't mind Bond or Star Wars doing that sort of thing, but for DBZ it just came off as kinda contrived and forced.

[ABED]

That's not the kind of thing I think about when I think "lore" but regardless it's a terrible idea. I don't like the whole "it's all connected" phenomena I see in sequels, like this or in the last 007 movie where Blofeld is revealed as the man behind everything. Can't Bond just have a bunch of disconnected adventures? Can't Beerus and Freeza be two antagonists without some prior connection? Can't Terry and Bruce have a connection without being related? Can't Rey just be a nobody instead of a Palpatine?

I didn't mind Bond or Star Wars doing that sort of thing, but for DBZ it just came off as kinda contrived and forced.

It was so contrived with Bond since it only happened because the Broccoli's got the rights to Blofeld back. Bond doesn't need a personal reason to fight bad guys. He's a government agent. It's literally his job.

In the sequel trilogy, the family reveal was lazy and in direct contradiction to a much more interesting idea, not to mention makes that universe much smaller as a result.

Beerus and Freeza felt contrived as well.because it doesn't add anything to the story. It's lazy and unnecessary.

[Magnificent Ponta]

I honestly don't think of Beerus's influences to past events as "lore", more of a running gag of throwaway comments to help demonstrate how petty he is. He suggested that Freeza wipe out the Saiyans purely because he couldn't be bothered to do it himself, he gouged King Kai's planet into its current miniature size because he lost a video game, sealed Elder Kaioshin in the Z-Sword for some petty slight, he smashed King Vegeta's head in over a pillow, etc. Either way, it helps to inform his silly characterisation so I'm cool with it. If anything, it's kind of like 'anti-lore' because it jabs at people who take the Dragon Ball universe too seriously.

I just hate the idea that Beerus is behind everything that happens in the story. It’s such a lazy and cheap attempt at building up his importance. Also, having Freeza destroy Vegeta because some lazy God told him to do so kind of diminishes Freeza as a villain.

Fair enough, but I think it's like an early Dragon Ball-style joke that's not meant to be over-thought. Of course the Freeza one is most controversial, understandably, but looking back at the original scene, it seems to be more the case that Freeza's choice to destroy Planet Vegeta was entirely his own (as was always said to be the case, because of his paranoia of a Saiyan uprising/the Super Saiyan legend), but Beerus approved of it either way. He implies that he was thinking about destroying it for a while, probably because of King Vegeta's disrespect, but Freeza destroying it for his own reasons was just convenient for him and saved him a job.

I agree with this view - and I think it's bolstered by the fact that, even after the Beerus connection has been put out there into continuity, Dragon Ball Super: Broly has Freeza's motivations align precisely with how they were described in DB^minus, so it's doubly clear that Freeza's reasons for destroying the Saiyans are his own, rather than anything Beerus tells him to do. If they'd meant it to be more significant, it would surely have been mentioned there.

At most, it's just playing on the link between the two established in the background to Battle of Gods and Revival of F - if Beerus is as willing to mingle with the mortal world as he appears when he's awake, it would make sense that he would engage with Freeza at some point if he has a problem with the Saiyans, and Toriyama has said that they have a certain rapport born from love of destruction.

[LoganForkHands73]

I just hate the idea that Beerus is behind everything that happens in the story. It’s such a lazy and cheap attempt at building up his importance. Also, having Freeza destroy Vegeta because some lazy God told him to do so kind of diminishes Freeza as a villain.

Fair enough, but I think it's like an early Dragon Ball-style joke that's not meant to be over-thought. Of course the Freeza one is most controversial, understandably, but looking back at the original scene, it seems to be more the case that Freeza's choice to destroy Planet Vegeta was entirely his own (as was always said to be the case, because of his paranoia of a Saiyan uprising/the Super Saiyan legend), but Beerus approved of it either way. He implies that he was thinking about destroying it for a while, probably because of King Vegeta's disrespect, but Freeza destroying it for his own reasons was just convenient for him and saved him a job.

I agree with this view - and I think it's bolstered by the fact that, even after the Beerus connection has been put out there into continuity, Dragon Ball Super: Broly has Freeza's motivations align precisely with how they were described in DB^minus, so it's doubly clear that Freeza's reasons for destroying the Saiyans are his own, rather than anything Beerus tells him to do. If they'd meant it to be more significant, it would surely have been mentioned there.

At most, it's just playing on the link between the two established in the background to Battle of Gods and Revival of F - if Beerus is as willing to mingle with the mortal world as he appears when he's awake, it would make sense that he would engage with Freeza at some point if he has a problem with the Saiyans, and Toriyama has said that they have a certain rapport born from love of destruction.

Thanks. Beerus's knowledge of Freeza is quite important, as Whis informing him that Goku killed him is one of the main things that convinces Beerus to take him seriously as a candidate for being the prophesied Super Saiyan God. Plus I like the idea that even without Freeza, the Saiyans with their belligerent culture were doomed one way or another because they'd pissed too many powerful people off. Resurrection F added the implication that Vegeta discovering Beerus's complacency in his planet's destruction could drive a wedge between them, but that's not been elaborated on yet. It could play a role in Beerus's eventual downfall as God of Destruction.

One thing I will say about Minus is that the Super Saiyan God legend being mentioned alongside the Super Saiyan legend did feel a bit redundant and shoehorned in to promote Battle of Gods, and more egregious because Freeza doesn't seem to have a clue what Goku's talking about when he explains Super Saiyan Blue in the following movie, so it really didn't set up anything.. but it was just one line so I'm willing to forgive it.

[Planetnamek]

That's not the kind of thing I think about when I think "lore" but regardless it's a terrible idea. I don't like the whole "it's all connected" phenomena I see in sequels, like this or in the last 007 movie where Blofeld is revealed as the man behind everything. Can't Bond just have a bunch of disconnected adventures? Can't Beerus and Freeza be two antagonists without some prior connection? Can't Terry and Bruce have a connection without being related? Can't Rey just be a nobody instead of a Palpatine?

I didn't mind Bond or Star Wars doing that sort of thing, but for DBZ it just came off as kinda contrived and forced.

It was so contrived with Bond since it only happened because the Broccoli's got the rights to Blofeld back. Bond doesn't need a personal reason to fight bad guys. He's a government agent. It's literally his job.

In the sequel trilogy, the family reveal was lazy and in direct contradiction to a much more interesting idea, not to mention makes that universe much smaller as a result.

Beerus and Freeza felt contrived as well.because it doesn't add anything to the story. It's lazy and unnecessary.

I thought making a personal added an interesting dimension to Bond that wasn't there before.

[WittyUsername]

Fair enough, but I think it's like an early Dragon Ball-style joke that's not meant to be over-thought. Of course the Freeza one is most controversial, understandably, but looking back at the original scene, it seems to be more the case that Freeza's choice to destroy Planet Vegeta was entirely his own (as was always said to be the case, because of his paranoia of a Saiyan uprising/the Super Saiyan legend), but Beerus approved of it either way. He implies that he was thinking about destroying it for a while, probably because of King Vegeta's disrespect, but Freeza destroying it for his own reasons was just convenient for him and saved him a job.

I agree with this view - and I think it's bolstered by the fact that, even after the Beerus connection has been put out there into continuity, Dragon Ball Super: Broly has Freeza's motivations align precisely with how they were described in DB^minus, so it's doubly clear that Freeza's reasons for destroying the Saiyans are his own, rather than anything Beerus tells him to do. If they'd meant it to be more significant, it would surely have been mentioned there.

At most, it's just playing on the link between the two established in the background to Battle of Gods and Revival of F - if Beerus is as willing to mingle with the mortal world as he appears when he's awake, it would make sense that he would engage with Freeza at some point if he has a problem with the Saiyans, and Toriyama has said that they have a certain rapport born from love of destruction.

Thanks. Beerus's knowledge of Freeza is quite important, as Whis informing him that Goku killed him is one of the main things that convinces Beerus to take him seriously as a candidate for being the prophesied Super Saiyan God. Plus I like the idea that even without Freeza, the Saiyans with their belligerent culture were doomed one way or another because they'd pissed too many powerful people off. Resurrection F added the implication that Vegeta discovering Beerus's complacency in his planet's destruction could drive a wedge between them, but that's not been elaborated on yet. It could play a role in Beerus's eventual downfall as God of Destruction.

One thing I will say about Minus is that the Super Saiyan God legend being mentioned alongside the Super Saiyan legend did feel a bit redundant and shoehorned in to promote Battle of Gods, and more egregious because Freeza doesn't seem to have a clue what Goku's talking about when he explains Super Saiyan Blue in the following movie, so it really didn't set up anything.. but it was just one line so I'm willing to forgive it.

Minus has far bigger problems than that one line, but I do think it‘s completely pointless to have Freeza be aware of the Super Saiyan God legend.