Do you the find the pushback against Goku being the hero to be odd?

[JewyB]

The same thing could be said of the Clone Saga. It went on as long as it did because it was popular but then in retrospect people realized it was a dumb story that went on too long and your point about sales is demonstrably false. We can both name plenty of popular franchises with awful writing.

Your point about sales doesn't prove anything. Changing the status quo often helps sales, especially after one that's lasted since the damn early 60s. But it's very telling that they keep going back to Peter.

It doesn't count in Miles case as Peter's story never went out of publication. There isn't just one Spider-Man title.

Perhaps US superhero comics with the multiple titles and the infinite middle is not the best example to use. It's not like one singular story with a single continuity

My point about sales is not that it proves anything in articular, but that an average increase of 10,000 readers for two years suggests that those 10,000 readers enjoyed the writing moreso than before, especially when prior we had events like Civil War, One More Day and a couple others i cant remember right now, i think its telling that a series with no huge crossover events outperforms one with several, and the only notable difference is a change in main character.

I also don't believe popularity = quality, but i do think comparing the spiderman titles sales with its own sales a year prior is a fair way to make a judgement. If i had said "But it makes more money than judge dredd" or something it would have been moot in this instance, but comparing it to the comics that lead into it and how it averages out can show us how the fanbase responded to the product. It doesnt mean the writing was better, but it does show it was received well, it also produced more money, meaning the series benefited from a change in the main character after and extended run, which was the point of this whole thing no?

I still think it somewhat counts, as he replaces a different main character, but i feel this is something we could go in circles on all day and this is for sure best to disagree.

We are also talking about Spiderman intently on a thread about Goku's position as a hero, so maybe best to continue in private messages or something before we steer the topic into a completely different world?

[ABED]

Because it's a friggin change in the status quo. The big events aren't. We've grown numb to them over the years. But it's always temporary and it's way more telling that it always ends up going back to the original status quo. It's like changing a job to even a crappy one. If you had a crappy job that bored you for years and changed, there's a good chance you'll be happier just by virtue of changing things up. The Death of Superman and its aftermath was a VERY popular storyline but do you think its sales prove The Eradicator or Superboy or Steel should be the permanent Superman?

Your time horizon's always seem too short. We're talking titles that spanned generations, and no, sales are not a good metric for making any sort of judgment about quality.

which was the point of this whole thing no?

No, not when even a 2 year stretch is in effect a cup of coffee in superhero comics and again, it's telling that it goes back to the status quo. Your time horizons are too short.

Was The X-Files better for losing Mulder? That 70s Show when Eric left? The Office when Michael left? 24 without Jack Bauer? DBZ with Gohan? Scrubs without JD?

[JewyB]

Because it's a friggin change in the status quo. The big events aren't. We've grown numb to them over the years. But it's always temporary and it's way more telling that it always ends up going back to the original status quo. It's like changing a job to even a crappy one. If you had a crappy job that bored you for years and changed, there's a good chance you'll be happier just by virtue of changing things up.

Your time horizon's always seem too short. We're talking titles that spanned generations, and no, sales are not a good metric for making any sort of judgment about quality

No, not when even a 2 year stretch is in effect a cup of coffee in superhero comics and again, it's telling that it goes back to the status quo. Your time horizons are too short.

Was The X-Files better for losing Mulder? That 70s Show when Eric left? The Office when Michael left? 24 without Jack Bauer? DBZ with Gohan? Scrubs without JD?

Seems kind of like you're stretching things to hit your viewpoint here, for example, 2 years isn't long enough and any increased interest is because of increase in novelty, yes? You then proceed to list several shows that failed almost immediately once the main characters left, if the change in status quo always worked how it does then they would have spiked in popularity right?

And either way, it wasn't just a spike, but a consistent change for two years, again, consistent as in, the novelty didnt wear off. Sales then dropped after Peters return for a short while, which shows that people were enjoying the ongoing plot and then left because of the main characters return.

But the problem is as well, you asked about a series with a long run that changed characters and saw an improvement. I covered those bases, you then moved the goalposts and have continued to do so, to a point of saying that because its a long running franchise the change has to be in effect for... how long specifically?

Also, not sure how i didnt think of this, one of my favourite book series(The Black Company) follows a group of mercenaries and after 15 years with one main character, we switch to another, then switch through a series of other main characters. The series is still pretty well loved, and one of the most popular aspects is the shifting of the main characters. Anecdotal but isnt anything this subjective?

[JewyB]

Because it's a friggin change in the status quo. The big events aren't. We've grown numb to them over the years. But it's always temporary and it's way more telling that it always ends up going back to the original status quo. It's like changing a job to even a crappy one. If you had a crappy job that bored you for years and changed, there's a good chance you'll be happier just by virtue of changing things up.

Your time horizon's always seem too short. We're talking titles that spanned generations, and no, sales are not a good metric for making any sort of judgment about quality

No, not when even a 2 year stretch is in effect a cup of coffee in superhero comics and again, it's telling that it goes back to the status quo. Your time horizons are too short.

Was The X-Files better for losing Mulder? That 70s Show when Eric left? The Office when Michael left? 24 without Jack Bauer? DBZ with Gohan? Scrubs without JD?

Seems kind of like you're stretching things to hit your viewpoint here, for example, 2 years isn't long enough and any increased interest is because of increase in novelty, yes? You then proceed to list several shows that failed almost immediately once the main characters left, if the change in status quo always worked how it does then they would have spiked in popularity right? Also if Civil War wasnt a big enough change in status quo at the time i dont know what is?

And either way, it wasn't just a spike, but a consistent change for two years, again, consistent as in, the novelty didnt wear off. Sales then dropped after Peters return for a short while, which shows that people were enjoying the ongoing plot and then left because of the main characters return.

But the problem is as well, you asked about a series with a long run that changed characters and saw an improvement. I covered those bases, you then moved the goalposts and have continued to do so, to a point of saying that because its a long running franchise the change has to be in effect for... how long specifically?

Also, not sure how i didnt think of this, one of my favourite book series(The Black Company) follows a group of mercenaries and after 15 years with one main character, we switch to another, then switch through a series of other main characters. The series is still pretty well loved, and one of the most popular aspects is the shifting of the main characters. Anecdotal but isnt anything this subjective?

EDIT: Also a change in main character is a change in status quo so it seems like you're arguing semantics moreso than the actual point that a change in main character, can lead to a change in status quo, which can lead to the story and writing feeling fresher, whether it be temporary or permanent(which in the world of comics/manga is unpredictable as its determined by fan feedback for the most part)

[WittyUsername]

When it comes to all the instances of Goku being written out of the story, only to show up later to save the day, that always comes across less like an attempt to give the other characters their time in the spotlight, and more of a storytelling crutch that Toriyama kept using in order to generate suspense. That cliche didn’t even technically begin with the Z-era. It started as early as Piccolo Daimao.

[ABED]

True, the trend did start in the Piccolo Daimao arc but it became a crutch in the Freeza arc, to the point where he does it twice!

[LoganForkHands73]

Seems kind of like you're stretching things to hit your viewpoint here, for example, 2 years isn't long enough and any increased interest is because of increase in novelty, yes? You then proceed to list several shows that failed almost immediately once the main characters left, if the change in status quo always worked how it does then they would have spiked in popularity right?

And either way, it wasn't just a spike, but a consistent change for two years, again, consistent as in, the novelty didnt wear off. Sales then dropped after Peters return for a short while, which shows that people were enjoying the ongoing plot and then left because of the main characters return.

But the problem is as well, you asked about a series with a long run that changed characters and saw an improvement. I covered those bases, you then moved the goalposts and have continued to do so, to a point of saying that because its a long running franchise the change has to be in effect for... how long specifically?

Also, not sure how i didnt think of this, one of my favourite book series(The Black Company) follows a group of mercenaries and after 15 years with one main character, we switch to another, then switch through a series of other main characters. The series is still pretty well loved, and one of the most popular aspects is the shifting of the main characters. Anecdotal but isnt anything this subjective?

Other good examples include:
Doctor Who -- Aside from the vague status quo of "Time Lord travels around with human companion in time-travelling larger-on-the-inside police box" (and even elements of that has been subject to changes for substantial periods, see Jon Pertwee's "UNIT era" for example), everything about the show is subject to constant status quo changes, even the main character who can regenerate into a totally new man every few years. The original status quo cast roster of the First Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Susan vanished in the 1960s and never returned -- viewers at the time thought that replacing the title character's actor would be a disaster, but it remained hugely popular and only reached new creative heights.
Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes -- The latter sequel series shifts the setting to the 1980s, totally overrides the twist ending of the previous series and follows a new lead protagonist, yet went on for four very well-received seasons whereas LoM only went on for two.
The Flash comic books -- This one goes without saying: Wally West's immense popularity after succeeding Barry Allen for a good twenty-odd years serves as an indication that changing the status quo definitely can pay off sometimes.

[ABED]

Because it's a friggin change in the status quo. The big events aren't. We've grown numb to them over the years. But it's always temporary and it's way more telling that it always ends up going back to the original status quo. It's like changing a job to even a crappy one. If you had a crappy job that bored you for years and changed, there's a good chance you'll be happier just by virtue of changing things up.

Your time horizon's always seem too short. We're talking titles that spanned generations, and no, sales are not a good metric for making any sort of judgment about quality

No, not when even a 2 year stretch is in effect a cup of coffee in superhero comics and again, it's telling that it goes back to the status quo. Your time horizons are too short.

Was The X-Files better for losing Mulder? That 70s Show when Eric left? The Office when Michael left? 24 without Jack Bauer? DBZ with Gohan? Scrubs without JD?

Seems kind of like you're stretching things to hit your viewpoint here, for example, 2 years isn't long enough and any increased interest is because of increase in novelty, yes? You then proceed to list several shows that failed almost immediately once the main characters left, if the change in status quo always worked how it does then they would have spiked in popularity right? Also if Civil War wasnt a big enough change in status quo at the time i dont know what is?

And either way, it wasn't just a spike, but a consistent change for two years, again, consistent as in, the novelty didnt wear off. Sales then dropped after Peters return for a short while, which shows that people were enjoying the ongoing plot and then left because of the main characters return.

But the problem is as well, you asked about a series with a long run that changed characters and saw an improvement. I covered those bases, you then moved the goalposts and have continued to do so, to a point of saying that because its a long running franchise the change has to be in effect for... how long specifically?

Also, not sure how i didnt think of this, one of my favourite book series(The Black Company) follows a group of mercenaries and after 15 years with one main character, we switch to another, then switch through a series of other main characters. The series is still pretty well loved, and one of the most popular aspects is the shifting of the main characters. Anecdotal but isnt anything this subjective?

EDIT: Also a change in main character is a change in status quo so it seems like you're arguing semantics moreso than the actual point that a change in main character, can lead to a change in status quo, which can lead to the story and writing feeling fresher, whether it be temporary or permanent(which in the world of comics/manga is unpredictable as its determined by fan feedback for the most part)

Two VASTLY different mediums which is why I said we shouldn't be talking about comics where it's a very different set of rules. Superhero comics have an infinite middle, and every TV show has an expiration date. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

I said longer than a cup of coffee. You continue to say 1 or 2 years and in the recent past.

I didn't move the fucking goalposts. You just need to have a much more long range view than 2 years and stop bringing up sales. If changing the main character were enough, why keep going back to the original?

Again, look at this stuff over a longer time horizon.

You didn't cover those bases, you keep bringing up sales.

What changed after Civil War? Fuck all in the long run.

[ABED]

Seems kind of like you're stretching things to hit your viewpoint here, for example, 2 years isn't long enough and any increased interest is because of increase in novelty, yes? You then proceed to list several shows that failed almost immediately once the main characters left, if the change in status quo always worked how it does then they would have spiked in popularity right?

And either way, it wasn't just a spike, but a consistent change for two years, again, consistent as in, the novelty didnt wear off. Sales then dropped after Peters return for a short while, which shows that people were enjoying the ongoing plot and then left because of the main characters return.

But the problem is as well, you asked about a series with a long run that changed characters and saw an improvement. I covered those bases, you then moved the goalposts and have continued to do so, to a point of saying that because its a long running franchise the change has to be in effect for... how long specifically?

Also, not sure how i didnt think of this, one of my favourite book series(The Black Company) follows a group of mercenaries and after 15 years with one main character, we switch to another, then switch through a series of other main characters. The series is still pretty well loved, and one of the most popular aspects is the shifting of the main characters. Anecdotal but isnt anything this subjective?

Other good examples include:
Doctor Who -- Aside from the vague status quo of "Time Lord travels around with human companion in time-travelling larger-on-the-inside police box" (and even elements of that has been subject to changes for substantial periods, see Jon Pertwee's "UNIT era" for example), everything about the show is subject to constant status quo changes, even the main character who can regenerate into a totally new man every few years. The original status quo cast roster of the First Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Susan vanished in the 1960s and never returned -- viewers at the time thought that replacing the title character's actor would be a disaster, but it remained hugely popular and only reached new creative heights.
Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes -- The latter sequel series shifts the setting to the 1980s, totally overrides the twist ending of the previous series and follows a new lead protagonist, yet went on for four very well-received seasons whereas LoM only went on for two.
The Flash comic books -- This one goes without saying: Wally West's immense popularity after succeeding Barry Allen for a good twenty-odd years serves as an indication that changing the status quo definitely can pay off sometimes.

Doctor who is a horrible example. He's still the same Doctor. It's no different from James Bond. Different actor but still the same character.

Can anyone think of better examples other than comics? The readers age out. The people reading when Barry was introduced are not the same who grew up reading Wally. Hell, for many John Stewart is the one GL they knew. Plenty of fans are just casual viewers and only know the most recent iteration of the characters. For many the most recent version of the characters are the only ones. Hell, it wasn't until the early 2000s that I ever found out about Jay Garrick. I grew up with Wally.

This isn't the same kind of story as DB where it's about one character who ages and until recently, had an ending.

[jjgp1112]

So how 'bout that Goku?

[JewyB]

Two VASTLY different mediums which is why I said we shouldn't be talking about comics where it's a very different set of rules. Superhero comics have an infinite middle, and every TV show has an expiration date.

I said longer than a cup of coffee. You continue to say 1 or 2 years and in the recent past.

I didn't move the fucking goalposts. You just need to have a much more long range view than 2 years and stop bringing up sales. If changing the main character were enough, why keep going back to the original?

Again, look at this stuff over a longer time horizon.

You didn't cover those bases, you keep bringing up sales.

What changed after Civil War? Fuck all in the long run.

You should state your rules before expecting people to debate about an off the cuff example they gave to one of your blanket statements about every story ever told.

With that, and it being clear with your shift to the aggressive that this isn't going to be a reasonable discussion(which is just very unabed if you ask me), i'm out, thanks for the chat.

[ABED]

So how 'bout that Goku?

Ha, fair enough. Changing out Goku is a dumb move and even when he tried it, it felt half assed. Goku was still there in important ways. Changing the main character in this case to Gohan means DB is way more earnest.

You should state your rules

They aren't my rules

[precita]

Why do people keep talking about other series/movies/comic book franchises when we talk about Dragonball? Nobody cares what happened in Star Wars or Spiderman...this is a Dragonball forum.

[ABED]

Why do people keep talking about other series/movies/comic book franchises when we talk about Dragonball? Nobody cares what happened in Star Wars or Spiderman...this is a Dragonball forum.

Because comparison and examples from other series can help illustrate a point being made about DB. I don't know why you don't understand that.

This is the second time I've seen someone take issues with people using examples from other stories to help prove their point and I find that odd.I love DB but some other stories provide a better example of a point being made. Take my Lethal Weapon example about the distinction between plot and story. I had a hard time articulating my point when I tried to think up a way to use DB to make my point. By using my go to example, you can see very clearly how I distinguish the two concepts.

[LoganForkHands73]

Doctor who is a horrible example. He's still the same Doctor. It's no different from James Bond. Different actor but still the same character.

It's a great example. The Doctor regeneration is much more than a simple actor switch, every incarnation has a completely different characterisation designed to contrast the last, hence why they all have separate profiles on just about every website. There's a reason why fans always have violent reactions to the Doctor changing, because it always changes the status quo of the show entirely. Bond doesn't have a strict continuity so actor changes are accepted by most, yet most of them have more or less the same personality.

Can anyone think of better examples other than comics? The readers age out. The people reading when Barry was introduced are not the same who grew up reading Wally. Hell, for many John Stewart is the one GL they knew. Plenty of fans are just casual viewers and only know the most recent iteration of the characters. For many the most recent version of the characters are the only ones. Hell, it wasn't until the early 2000s that I ever found out about Jay Garrick. I grew up with Wally.

This isn't the same kind of story as DB where it's about one character who ages and until recently, had an ending.

Well, comics are a long-form medium where there are frequent major status quo changes, so what's the issue bringing them up? Dragon Ball is itself a comic book franchise. You were saying that status quo changes are almost never good, but many fans who have read both Barry and Wally comics find Wally's run to be superior in any case. Especially after Barry retook the spotlight, which was a major status quo change itself that many Wally fans still hate to this day. The Flash was once about just one character but then it changed, several times. You talk about short horizons yet these changes do span generations. The fact that Dragon Ball didn't evict Goku while it was running doesn't invalidate that.

On top of DW, I brought up another non-comic example Ashes to Ashes which is still considered a classic TV series in the UK. Jewy brought up The Black Company novel series.

I get that you feel very strongly about Dragon Ball being "Goku's story" and all that but there's no need to throw a fit over it every time the possibility of protagonists shifting in both Dragon Ball and other media is brought up. It's not some universal rule.

Because comparison and examples from other series can help illustrate a point being made about DB. I don't know why you don't understand that.

This is the second time I've seen someone take issues with people using examples from other stories to help prove their point and I find that odd.I love DB but some other stories provide a better example of a point being made. Take my Lethal Weapon example about the distinction between plot and story. I had a hard time articulating my point when I tried to think up a way to use DB to make my point. By using my go to example, you can see very clearly how I distinguish the two concepts.

This, however, I agree with fully. Dragon Ball doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's okay to compare it to other series. The best thread on this whole site by kunzait discusses the history of the wuxia and martial arts genres that helped influence Dragon Ball, yet it barely even discusses Dragon Ball until like the last page.

[MyVisionity]

Ben Reilly as Spider-Man is probably a better example of a replacement that would have worked out had it been allowed to last, but that's probably because of his ties to Parker.

At any rate, comparing manga/anime to superhero comics doesn't really work for many reasons. One of which is because unlike most Marvel/DC characters, Goku is just one guy. It's not like how there is both Peter Parker and Spider-Man, Bruce Wayne and the Batman. You can replace the lead characters in those series because their alter egos still remain. Take out Goku, and then what's left?

This isn't the same kind of story as DB where it's about one character who ages and until recently, had an ending.

The characters age in superhero books as well, but at a different rate. In other words, if at all possible, readers should familiarize themselves with Jay Garrick and Barry Allen if they are reading during the era of Wally West. That's what comic books are all about.

Maybe it's comparable to viewers following Goku as an adult in DBZ without having watched DB.

[JulieYBM]

I go back and forth on this all the time. I like Son Gokuu and I don't really want and/or need a new 'main character'. I just wish we saw Gokuu in new scenarios (and a less ridiculous personality) and not just stuck in the same cycle like with the Moro arc devoting the majority of its time to repeating the same tired, stretched out endgame-scenario.

Dragon Ball is aimed at people who won't criticize it or withhold their money from it, so I suppose I'm barking into the wind over it all. I just wish I could get some characters who weren't entirely devoid of substance.

(Humorously, I'm sure I was saying the exact opposite 2-3 years ago).

[ABED]

Doctor who is a horrible example. He's still the same Doctor. It's no different from James Bond. Different actor but still the same character.

It's a great example. The Doctor regeneration is much more than a simple actor switch, every incarnation has a completely different characterisation designed to contrast the last, hence why they all have separate profiles on just about every website. There's a reason why fans always have violent reactions to the Doctor changing, because it always changes the status quo of the show entirely. Bond doesn't have a strict continuity so actor changes are accepted by most, yet most of them have more or less the same personality.

Can anyone think of better examples other than comics? The readers age out. The people reading when Barry was introduced are not the same who grew up reading Wally. Hell, for many John Stewart is the one GL they knew. Plenty of fans are just casual viewers and only know the most recent iteration of the characters. For many the most recent version of the characters are the only ones. Hell, it wasn't until the early 2000s that I ever found out about Jay Garrick. I grew up with Wally.

This isn't the same kind of story as DB where it's about one character who ages and until recently, had an ending.

Well, comics are a long-form medium where there are frequent major status quo changes, so what's the issue bringing them up? Dragon Ball is itself a comic book franchise. You were saying that status quo changes are almost never good, but many fans who have read both Barry and Wally comics find Wally's run to be superior in any case. Especially after Barry retook the spotlight, which was a major status quo change itself that many Wally fans still hate to this day. The Flash was once about just one character but then it changed, several times. You talk about short horizons yet these changes do span generations. The fact that Dragon Ball didn't evict Goku while it was running doesn't invalidate that.

On top of DW, I brought up another non-comic example Ashes to Ashes which is still considered a classic TV series in the UK. Jewy brought up The Black Company novel series.

I get that you feel very strongly about Dragon Ball being "Goku's story" and all that but there's no need to throw a fit over it every time the possibility of protagonists shifting in both Dragon Ball and other media is brought up. It's not some universal rule.

Because comparison and examples from other series can help illustrate a point being made about DB. I don't know why you don't understand that.

This is the second time I've seen someone take issues with people using examples from other stories to help prove their point and I find that odd.I love DB but some other stories provide a better example of a point being made. Take my Lethal Weapon example about the distinction between plot and story. I had a hard time articulating my point when I tried to think up a way to use DB to make my point. By using my go to example, you can see very clearly how I distinguish the two concepts.

This, however, I agree with fully. Dragon Ball doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's okay to compare it to other series. The best thread on this whole site by kunzait discusses the history of the wuxia and martial arts genres that helped influence Dragon Ball, yet it barely even discusses Dragon Ball until like the last page.

Since when did Doctor Who have a "strict continuity". And if he is completely different, why is he called THE Doctor?

And in superhero comics, does the status quo ultimately change that much? How long did it take for Lois and Clark to get hitched? Hint, it took until my lifetime.

"Throwing a fit"? Really?

Sure sometimes the changes do span generations, but the continuities don't. I've lost count of how many reboots DC has gone through. You miss Hal? See you next reboot Mr. Jordan.

I still stand by my statement that stories don't benefit from changing the lead after an extended run, not in the long run. If you need to change the lead to retain interest, it's time to pack it up. At that point, you're just running on fumes desperately trying to keep the money train rolling.

[Cursed Lemon]

Goku turning Super Saiyan says hello. It is probably the most iconic moment in the series. People love good character development but they also just love good characters. Static character doesn't mean they aren't interesting or as interesting as more dynamic characters.

List for me every piece of fiction you can think of where the main character (who isn't a faceless vicar for the viewer/player) does not go through some kind of personal growth and therefore becomes relatable to the audience. You're not going to get off the first hand.

Goku isn't relatable. He is always as strong as he needs to be and the viewer simply has to wait until he succeeds. He's able to get away with being who he is because it's an action show about people punching each other in the face. In order for Goku to be interesting, his circumstances have to be interesting. So when the story isn't interesting, neither is he (see: almost all of Super).

[ABED]

Goku turning Super Saiyan says hello. It is probably the most iconic moment in the series. People love good character development but they also just love good characters. Static character doesn't mean they aren't interesting or as interesting as more dynamic characters.

List for me every piece of fiction you can think of where the main character (who isn't a faceless vicar for the viewer/player) does not go through some kind of personal growth and therefore becomes relatable to the audience. You're not going to get off the first hand.

Goku isn't relatable. He is always as strong as he needs to be and the viewer simply has to wait until he succeeds. He's able to get away with being who he is because it's an action show about people punching each other in the face. In order for Goku to be interesting, his circumstances have to be interesting. So when the story isn't interesting, neither is he (see: almost all of Super).

sherlock Holmes doesn’t change much if at all in the original stories

Change in itself isn’t inherently interesting or necessarily relatable. In fact most people don’t change because it is difficult

I would also argue that people don’t look to stories for relatability