Gohan Out of Character at Cell Games? Let's end this debate.

[rereboy]

So you're saying that it's wrong for someone to enjoy something but think it's bad at the same time?

Yes, because you are arguing that there's something objective about the appreciation of a subjective piece of entertainment when, by definition, there's not.

What you think is objective is just you recognizing certain characteristics that you usually identify as good or bad and so you, mistakingly, think that a piece of entertainment has to have those characteristics to be considered good or bad by other people, like there's a formula to it or something. There's not. For example, being complex is usually regarded by you as a characteristic for something to be considered good. However, a piece of entertainment can be less complex, way more enjoyable and overall, better than another piece of entertainment that happens to be more complex. That alone demonstrates how wrong you are.

[ABED]

I know schools teach that touchy feely, there are no wrong opinions, but I don't ascribe to that, in this case it's wrong. Something like that needs to be developed, otherwise it's bad storytelling. He can enjoy it, that's fine.

Bad storytelling is a subjective notion. There's nothing really wrong or right about it. Its just bad or good depending on the opinion of the people being asked.

The only thing actually wrong is believing that things inherently subjective regarding entertainment can be wrong or right, like you seem to be doing right now.

Also, mentioning school to me is kind of ineffective since I'm practically 30 years old so I finished school a long time ago. Not to mention that I'm talking about entertainment where subjective views are the whole point.

Personally, I actually agree that there is a need for some more exposition regarding Gohan's behavior, but I don't actually think that people that think otherwise are wrong just because they have a different viewpoint. There's nothing wrong, for example, in believing that the most natural development for Gohan now that he is older would be to feel responsibility more intensely and act like he did in the Cell games and, as such, not feeling the need for more exposition than what we got. I just happen to have another viewpoint.

Thinking DBZ is bad =/= Not liking it.

No, its not. If you like it, you think its good for you. There is no such thing as objectively good. I can like Dragon Ball and dislike The Godfather, for example, and I'm not wrong because its all subjective. We can't decide what's good and what's bad for other people, its their call, their opinion, so its pointless to say that something like that is objectively good or not, it can only be subjectively good.

Good storytelling vs bad storytelling isn't subjective. Preferences are, but not the art. Everything including art has to have some form or it ceases to be what it is. My point isn't that people can't enjoy whatever they want, just that there are elements of good storytelling and things that make for bad storytelling.

[rereboy]

Good storytelling vs bad storytelling isn't subjective.

No? Then how come there's so many conflicting views on whether the storytelling of any given movie is good or bad or better or worse than another given movie? Because its subjective. Even the terms "bad" and "good" are subjective since what I might good you might find bad. There's really no getting around this.

Preferences are, but not the art.

Art is objective? There's nothing more subjective than art.

Everything including art has to have some form or it ceases to be what it is.

"Goodness" has no set form. Being good is a subjective notion. Something can only be considered good after somebody classifies it as good. Without somebody to classify it, it just is, it doesn't become good or bad before somebody has a opinion on it. And other people may disagree with that person and call it bad.

My point isn't that people can't enjoy whatever they want, just that there are elements of good storytelling and things that make for bad storytelling.

What you call elements of good storytelling are just typical characteristics that you've come to identify as typical of something you find good, like many other people do. But these characteristics don't translate into a formula. Something can be not very complex and still be very good and better than something that is far more complex, for example. Not to mention that not all people with agree with the characteristics that make something good, and there's no majority rule in these matters.

[ABED]

Good storytelling vs bad storytelling isn't subjective.

No? Then how come there's so many conflicting views on whether the storytelling of any given movie is good or bad or better or worse than another given movie? Because its subjective. Even the terms "bad" and "good" are subjective since what I might good you might find bad. There's really no getting around this.

Preferences are, but not the art.

Art is objective? There's nothing more subjective than art.

Everything including art has to have some form or it ceases to be what it is.

Something good has no set form. Being good is a subjective notion. Something can only be considered good after somebody classifies it as good. Without somebody to classify it, it just is, it doesn't become good or bad before somebody has a opinion on it. And other people may disagree with that person and call it bad.

My point isn't that people can't enjoy whatever they want, just that there are elements of good storytelling and things that make for bad storytelling.

What you call elements of good storytelling are just typical characteristics that you've come to identify as typical of something you find good, like many other people do. But these characteristics don't translate into a formula. Something can be not very complex and still be very good and better than something that is far more complex, for example. Not to mention that not all people with agree with the characteristics that make something good, and there's no majority rule in these matters.

The mere presence of conflicting views doesn't mean lack of objectivity. Even in science, there're conflicting views, doesn't mean science is whatever people want.

Art has to fit into certain parameters in order to distinguish it from other concepts. You can't just slap materials together and call it a bridge, a building, a sentence, etc. What makes art inherently different in your view? Let's get more fundamental, what is art?

Why does the mere fact of disagreement mean something is subjective? I don't see the link.

[rereboy]

The mere presence of conflicting views doesn't mean lack of objectivity. Even in science, there're conflicting views, doesn't mean science is whatever people want.

Art has to fit into certain parameters in order to distinguish it from other concepts. You can't just slap materials together and call it a bridge, a building, a sentence, etc. What makes art inherently different in your view? Let's get more fundamental, what is art?

Why does the mere fact of disagreement mean something is subjective? I don't see the link.

If disagreement exists, it means the two men disagreeing are interpreting things differently because the two men are different from each other. That's the subjective element that is present in everything we do. However, science struggles to come up with objectives solutions and answers. That's its purpose, to be objective, and it does this by removing the subjective element as much as possibly, via the scientific method, cold logic and reason.

No such things exists in entertainment and in art. Their purposes are completely different and they can not be separated from the subjective element. In fact, they depend on it. Their purpose is to fascinate, to compel, to entertain the individual, to appeal to the very essence of our opinion, our very personal ego. They aren't trying to find some sort of universal truth, they are trying to appeal to the side of us that thinks that certain things are good, beautiful, fascinating, compelling, or, in other words, to our subjective side. Objectivity in art or entertainment is basically a contradiction.

[ABED]

The mere presence of conflicting views doesn't mean lack of objectivity. Even in science, there're conflicting views, doesn't mean science is whatever people want.

Art has to fit into certain parameters in order to distinguish it from other concepts. You can't just slap materials together and call it a bridge, a building, a sentence, etc. What makes art inherently different in your view? Let's get more fundamental, what is art?

Why does the mere fact of disagreement mean something is subjective? I don't see the link.

If disagreement exists, it means the two men disagreeing are interpreting things differently because the two men are different from each other. That's the subjective element that is present in everything we do. However, science struggles to come up with objectives solutions and answers. That's its purpose, to be objective, and it does this by removing the subjective element as much as possibly, via the scientific method, cold logic and reason.

No such things exists in entertainment and in art. Their purposes are completely different and they can not be separated from the subjective element. In fact, they depend on it. Their purpose is to fascinate, to compel, to entertain the individual, to appeal to the very essence of our opinion, our very personal ego. They aren't trying to find some sort of universal truth, they are trying to appeal to the side of us that thinks that certain things are good, beautiful, fascinating, compelling, or, in other words, to our subjective side. Objectivity in art or entertainment is basically a contradiction.

I find dogs entertaining and compelling, it's not art. What is art? What separates it from everything else? You use a lot of great adjectives, but it's so vague that it's basically meaningless.

I'm compelled, fascinated, and find beauty in a lot of things, that doesn't make them art.

Random notes and sounds aren't songs, random letters aren't words, random words aren't sentences, random events aren't plots.

[Cursed Lemon]

Well, wait a second.

Gohan going nutso after hitting SSJ2 isn't an "out of character" moment, it's a character-defining moment.

IMHOtep, Gohan not wanting to fight Cell is not necessarily out of character either. As I said in the other thread, every other time that Gohan get angry, it was his back against the wall facing a superior opponent. Raditz, Nappa, Freeza, etc. were all much stronger than he was. However, when the time came to fight Cell and Gohan understood the level of power he attained, he didn't want to fight against Cell because he didn't want to hurt him - Gohan knew that his full potential would ruin Cell's day in the worst way. For once in his life, he was vastly, VASTLY superior to his opponent, and that fact made him firmly against fighting until Cell pushed him to a near psychotic break; it was at this point that Gohan got supremely angry and could not show Cell any mercy.

[penguintruth]

I can't help but noticing that this thread which promised to "end the debate" has gone on for 7 pages worth of debate...

The problem here is that there shouldn't even be a debate. Gohan was objectively OOC. He contradicted everything about his personality, and there was no build up at all for this change.

Anyone who honestly thinks that Gohan wasn't OOC is not looking at the big picture.

In the several pages this thread has lasted, you haven't supplied a single scrap of evidence to support this notion.

There is no actual debate here, because "debate" assumes you have an argument, but you haven't. Gohan wasn't out of character. Gohan doesn't enjoy to fight, but he will if he has to. It's always been that way. He only enjoyed making Cell suffer later because of the surge of power increasing his ferocity.

"Because he always fought before!" isn't an argument, or even an opinion, but a reaction. He fought this time, too. But he became overwhelmed by the situation, as he is wont to do, as proven in every major fight he's been in. And the failure to recognize the difference between fighting and enjoying fighting points to your utter lack of understanding of even simple character motivation.

[Zephyr]

Anyone who honestly thinks that Gohan wasn't OOC is not looking at the big picture.

I don't think you're looking at the big picture.

Does Gohan's OOC-ness in the Cell Games count as a plot hole?

How is being hesitant after being thrown into a match against your will, learning the real extent of how powerful you really are, being afraid of what you might do if you unleash your true power, and not actually knowing exactly how to unleash it, out of character?

The only other time Gohan was straight up told "okay Gohan, the plan is for you to fight!" was against the Saiyans. Look how that started out. Hesitation.

His dad's always been pretty much the strongest guy he knew. His savior in the most dire situations of his life. Now he learns that he's stronger than this guy?

Knowing that you're more powerful than your own father, who's always been there to save the day and beat up the bad guys who nearly put you on your death bed, it would be scary as hell fathoming the full extent of our power, and what might happen to those around you (and the planet you live on) if you really unleash it.

It's clearly tied to his emotions, and he's never just willed it out. He's always had to snap. Now, there's pressure on. All eyes are on him. He now has a responsibility to make use of his power, like against Nappa, where he also failed to do anything. Against Freeza, and when he did finally do something against the Saiyans, his back was literally against the wall.

Now you can address my post. Or so I'd like to imagine.

[jjgp1112]

Thank you, Penguintruth, Zephyr, and Cursed Lemon. That seems to be the fundamental thing people are missing - he backed out of fighting precisely because he knew he was strong enough to kill Cell and would rather Cell just quit instead of having to settle things with violence. He said it himself. Not only was he stating his desire to not fight, he was also warning Cell of what will happen if he pushes him too far. And ultimately, his power was tied to his emotion- he couldn't just let it out at will anyway.

tl;dr: Gohan basically said, "If we fight, I will kill you. So let's not do this." That's not very OOC to me.

Another important thing to note is that Gohan was under a lot more pressure. Unlike previous battles, where him flying off the handle was spontaneous, this time Goku's game plan is for Gohan to get angry. "Hey son, go and do that rage boost thingy real quick." How do you expect Gohan to basically sit there and force himself to snap? Goku was trying to use spontaneous emotions as a battle tactic like they're playing a video game, and that's very counterproductive.

[Gonstead]

Gohan trained to help fight against enemies, yes.

Gohan wanted to help fight against enemies, yes.

But...

Up until that point, Gohan hasn't actually, y'know, killed somebody before. Ended a life. Snuffed out the flame. Get someone to kick the bucket prematurely. Murder. Whatever your thoughts be on the matter, a life being ended is nothing small, no matter who or what the person has done beforehand.

He's just not that sort of person.

Now that he actually DOES possess the capability of being able to do such a thing and knowing full well he most likely will NOT be in control or in a proper rational state of mind like his previous uses... do you get where I'm going with this?

For Kami's sake, look back in the fight itself where as a Super Saiyan 2, all he's doing is toying with Cell, causing him to feel excruciating pain, destroying any sort of pride he once held as the perfect being and taking elated joy in doing so.

THAT is what Gohan was afraid that he would become, something that he is not and obviously does not wish to be associated with. Yes, he can enjoy a friendly fight with friends such as in Movie 9 and the 25th Tenkaichi Budokai but when it's presented in the sick joke that Cell made it out to be, it strips out any sort of fun.

[jjgp1112]

Gohan trained to help fight against enemies, yes.

Gohan wanted to help fight against enemies, yes.

But...

Up until that point, Gohan hasn't actually, y'know, killed somebody before. Ended a life. Snuffed out the flame. Get someone to kick the bucket prematurely. Murder. Whatever your thoughts be on the matter, a life being ended is nothing small, no matter who or what the person has done beforehand.

He's just not that sort of person.

Now that he actually DOES possess the capability of being able to do such a thing and knowing full well he most likely will NOT be in control or in a proper rational state of mind like his previous uses... do you get where I'm going with this?

For Kami's sake, look back in the fight itself where as a Super Saiyan 2, all he's doing is toying with Cell, causing him to feel excruciating pain, destroying any sort of pride he once held as the perfect being and taking elated joy in doing so.

THAT is what Gohan was afraid that he would become, something that he is not and obviously does not wish to be associated with. Yes, he can enjoy a friendly fight with friends such as in Movie 9 and the 25th Tenkaichi Budokai but when it's presented in the sick joke that Cell made it out to be, it strips out any sort of fun.

Seriously, this was spelled out explicitly in the show - both in the original and the dub, mind you - and his actions once he transformed and the consequences only validated his reluctance.

[Flame Dragon]

I really like the responses this thread is getting, all very interesting.

Another important thing to note is that Gohan was under a lot more pressure. Unlike previous battles, where him flying off the handle was spontaneous, this time Goku's game plan is for Gohan to get angry. "Hey son, go and do that rage boost thingy real quick." How do you expect Gohan to basically sit there and force himself to snap? Goku was trying to use spontaneous emotions as a battle tactic like they're playing a video game, and that's very counterproductive.

I'd also like to add that Piccolo speech to Goku pretty much confirmed this.

[Kid Buu]

Up until that point, Gohan hasn't actually, y'know, killed somebody before. Ended a life. Snuffed out the flame. Get someone to kick the bucket prematurely. Murder. Whatever your thoughts be on the matter, a life being ended is nothing small, no matter who or what the person has done beforehand.

He's just not that sort of person.

He killed a Freeza soldier when he first landed on Namek.

[FrogTrigger]

Up until that point, Gohan hasn't actually, y'know, killed somebody before. Ended a life. Snuffed out the flame. Get someone to kick the bucket prematurely. Murder. Whatever your thoughts be on the matter, a life being ended is nothing small, no matter who or what the person has done beforehand.

He's just not that sort of person.

He killed a Freeza soldier when he first landed on Namek.

Well you know what they say

No body no evidence

But seriously I remember gohan and krillin just ktfo'd those dudes?

[thatdbzguy]

Up until that point, Gohan hasn't actually, y'know, killed somebody before. Ended a life. Snuffed out the flame. Get someone to kick the bucket prematurely. Murder. Whatever your thoughts be on the matter, a life being ended is nothing small, no matter who or what the person has done beforehand.

He's just not that sort of person.

He killed a Freeza soldier when he first landed on Namek.

Yeah, but that was more of an indirect kill, wasn't it? I mean, unless the soldiers got out of the water after Gohan and the others left, they died from drowning, not from Gohan and Krillin's kicks.

[ABED]

Up until that point, Gohan hasn't actually, y'know, killed somebody before. Ended a life. Snuffed out the flame. Get someone to kick the bucket prematurely. Murder.

Killing and murder AREN'T the same thing at all. Killing someone like Cell is completely justified.

I would've bought Gohan's reasons more if they had played up Gohan's lack of confidence in his skills. I also think it didn't make a lick of sense that Goku didn't tell him his plan. That seems like something more for the reader's benefit than any good in story reason. Instead we get, "this fight is pointless". How is it pointless? Cell wants to kill everyone, and you are the only one that can stop him because nothing anyone can say will stop Cell from doing what he set out to do.

I don't recall Gohan ever fearing losing control before the Cell arc.

If he was warning Cell, that was one of the most timid threats ever.

[DBZAOTA482]

Up until that point, Gohan hasn't actually, y'know, killed somebody before. Ended a life. Snuffed out the flame. Get someone to kick the bucket prematurely. Murder.

Killing and murder AREN'T the same thing at all. Killing someone like Cell is completely justified.

I would've bought Gohan's reasons more if they had played up Gohan's lack of confidence in his skills. I also think it didn't make a lick of sense that Goku didn't tell him his plan. That seems like something more for the reader's benefit than any good in story reason. Instead we get, "this fight is pointless". How is it pointless? Cell wants to kill everyone, and you are the only one that can stop him because nothing anyone can say will stop Cell from doing what he set out to do.

I don't recall Gohan ever fearing losing control before the Cell arc.

Well... Goku wasn't entirely sure he'd beat Cell or not and wanted everyone to take it easy for the 10 days. Plus it's not unusual for Goku to put fighting above everything else.

Also, Goku is gambling with his rage so their fight, in a way, is pointless. And the Cell Saga is the first time he ever actually acknowledged his rage boosts, and he was a lot weaker then.

[ABED]

Well... Goku wasn't entirely sure he'd beat Cell or not and wanted everyone to take it easy for the 10 days. Plus it's not unusual for Goku to put fighting above everything else.

Also, Goku is gambling with his rage so their fight, in a way, is pointless. And the Cell Saga is the first time he ever actually acknowledged his rage boosts, and he was a lot weaker then.

This isn't putting fighting above all else, it's him not telling Gohan when it makes no sense not to.

Goku isn't gambling with his rage. He's counting on it because there's no one else who can stop Cell. This isn't the first time anyone acknowledged Gohan's anger giving him power. It's not a pointless fight. Cell is out to kill everyone, I can't think of anything more important that fighting to defend everyone.

[thatdbzguy]

I think I'll just go ahead and sum up what ABED and rereboy and saying, and what a lot of people don't seem to realize:

Gohan never showed fear of his power before. Gohan never showed a reluctance to defend his friends before. Thus, he's acting OOC.