Toriyama Is Ruining DragonBall?!

[rereboy]

Here, I'm simply restating one of the main arguments in this thread put forward by other users, and that even if that contention holds water, it shouldn't be an issue to individual fans. I think that should be clear. Where did I even imply that this was a viewpoint I personally held?

You didn't dismiss it either, and treated like its a valid and logical viewpoint, which I contested. Which is why I stated that "you BASICALLY stated that an author CAN disrespect the fans with the choices he makes regarding the franchise and its direction".

What's the difference between "noteworthy luck" and "luck"? To me, there is none. Luck is luck. Luck is being born in a part of the world where you don't have to worry about where your next meal will come from and can instead focus your energy on creating works of art. How many highly intelligent/creative people do you think are born into squalor and can't do anything with their talents because they're too hungry to think every day? Some of them get noticed and get opportunities; some don't. That's luck too.

None, in this context. You only call a person lucky when their luck has been noteworthy. I merely wanted to stress this point, that we only talk about a person being lucky when its noteworthy luck. Otherwise, that person didn't have any more luck than anyone else and his success can be linked entirety to his talent.

You seem to be saying that if a person is noticed at all then he's always lucky. I completely disagree. An author can deserve to be noticed due to his talent but often, despite his talent and the fact that he deserves to be noticed, it can take a long time before he is noticed and has significant success, much more than he deserved. In such a case, he actually had bad luck but his talent prevailed, which would make him a successful author that built his success entirely on his talent and on the fact that he deserved it, not luck.

[hleV]

No, I'm saying that it's subjective whether the new DB-related shit from Toriyama sucks or not in general, however it's not subjective that it sucks in comparison to the original DB. Basically with the shit Toriyama does/says now he would never have gotten his "stuff" popular, but some may not see it as a complete garbage neither.

Oh, really? According to whom?

According to a big portion of DB fans. More than a few people complaining about the same thing is in itself an indicator that something is off. If half of the people think it's the same old DB and the other half thinks it sucks, it averages to being worse than the old DB.

[Luso Saiyan]

According to a big portion of DB fans.

Then it remains subjective.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

Come on, seriously? Merit: The quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.

I didn't mean literally define "merit". I meant explain the whole sentence to me, because it's still not making sense. I shouldn't have been so abrupt, but I'm having a hard time following this discussion, especially when you're using big words like "burden of proof", which Google tells me is legal terminology, and not explaining specifically how they relate to the discussion. What is it you think I said regarding merit and success, and we'll go from there. Directly quoting me helps.

And I said the very same thing. And you quoted me and questioned the (supposedly lack of) importance I give to distribution. Hence why I advised you to read again. Because I said, more than once already, that distribution is a component of success.

Is this the post your referring to?

Not me, you or any other fan. Having clients/fans is just a component of success, like distribution of the product/work.

This is really inane. If it doesn't get distributed, who is going to see it? If no one sees it, how are people going to know if they want to buy it? And if no one buys it, how can it be called successful?

Maybe I should have been more literal in response to this, but you could have asked me to be more specific. What I meant was having fans who purchase your work is success (if success is defined in monetary terms), and not merely part of it. But for people to buy it, it needs to be available and they need to be aware of it; hence distribution. I think you might actually be in agreement with me on this, but I'm not sure.

You didn't dismiss it either, and treated like its a valid and logical viewpoint, which I contested.

So if I don't dismiss it, and merely state that this is a viewpoint some people have, I must necessarily agree with it? Sorry, but I don't think that's a valid assumption, and you should have asked if that was a view I actually held before responding to me as it if was.

None, in this context. You only call a person lucky when their luck has been noteworthy.

Give me an example of the difference between "noteworthy luck" and luck that isn't noteworthy. Because I think the fact that you weren't born in a war-torn country, not knowing when you're next meal will be, is pretty damn noteworthy.

You seem to be saying that if a person is noticed at all then he's always lucky.

I might have been unclear about it, but that's exactly what I meant. By "get noticed and get opportunities", I meant being given the chance to improve and ultimately reach a wide audience.


As I said above and as many times before, not everyone is born in a place with opportunities to get noticed, let alone basic human necessities. Not everyone is born in a place where they can cultivate their talent without worrying about preventable and curable illness and disease. Not everyone is born in a place where people are as receptive to art, and don't have the means to move to a place where they are. People are born with talent, but no one is born with enough talent to create a masterpiece. It takes practice, and not everyone is given the opportunity to hone their skills and then put their work out there because of the circumstances into which they were born. It sucks to say it, but talent doesn't always prevail.

[hleV]

According to a big portion of DB fans.

Then it remains subjective.

Only if you look at it the wrong way. The remaining portion of my post is important as well. Please read it.

[ABED]

What's the difference between "noteworthy luck" and "luck"? To me, there is none. Luck is luck. Luck is being born in a part of the world where you don't have to worry about where your next meal will come from and can instead focus your energy on creating works of art. How many highly intelligent/creative people do you think are born into squalor and can't do anything with their talents because they're too hungry to think every day? Some of them get noticed and get opportunities; some don't. That's luck too.

So the "a hungry man isn't free" argument? A number of the richest men in history started out very poor.

But there's also the fact that you were able to receive an education, have opportunities to get better over time etc. See above.

How many people don't do anything with their education or don't pay attention in class? Just because someone opens the door doesn't mean someone always walks through.

It all begins with the product. To frame it as "the fans make him successful," implies a sense of entitlement. He's rich because you enjoyed something he created and were willing to give him money. You both benefitted from the transaction.

Great, Toriyama isn't born into a wartorn country, but that doesn't imply he isn't self made or anyone is entitled to anymore than he's willing to give.

What we think of his additions or stories in general are a matter of our own tastes, but to say he owes anything to his fans and can't make changes to his own work is wrong. I may not like the changes Lucas made, but his works belonged to him back when he owned the rights.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

So the "a hungry man isn't free" argument?

Never heard of this.

A number of the richest men in history started out very poor.

And a lot of poor people stay poor. Except you've never heard of them because they didn't make anything of themselves.

It all begins with the product. To frame it as "the fans make him successful," implies a sense of entitlement.

I think it's the truth, and I don't think it necessarily implies that. You can choose to act entitled because of that. Or, like you, and much more reasonably, you can choose view it as a transaction.

[Luso Saiyan]

I meant explain the whole sentence to me, because it's still not making sense. I shouldn't have been so abrupt, but I'm having a hard time following this discussion, especially when you're using big words like "burden of proof", which Google tells me is legal terminology, and not explaining specifically how they relate to the discussion.

"Burden of proof" is not a legal term (not exclusively anyway), it's part of basic argumentation rules, like logical fallacies and such.

What is it you think I said regarding merit and success, and we'll go from there. Directly quoting me helps.

What you think I said: "merit is the only thing that determines whether something is created and is successful."

Merit doesn't determine wether something is created or is successful. Merit comes as a result of that.

What I actually said: "if the series is successful it's because of him, what he created and the choices he made (that's what made us buy it)."

How you believe it's the same thing is beyond me.

Maybe I should have been more literal in response to this, but you could have asked me to be more specific. What I meant was having fans who purchase your work is success (if success is defined in monetary terms), and not merely part of it. But for people to buy it, it needs to be available and they need to be aware of it; hence distribution. I think you might actually be in agreement with me on this, but I'm not sure.

Success is determined by many things, hence why I keep saying "a component of". Having a publisher interested in distributing your work is a component of success. Having people interested in your work is another component. Having people buy your work is the result of your success. The merit and responsibility for all this goes to Toriyama, because he was the one who created the work in the first place. The work is what made people be interested in it, thus it's what made him successful. He's the one who created the work, therefore he is the one responsible for his own success.

Only if you look at it the wrong way.

The wrong way? Says who?

The remaining portion of my post is important as well. Please read it.

It's not important nor relevant to the point I'm making. Just because I cut it, doesn't mean I didn't read it.

[rereboy]

So if I don't dismiss it, and merely state that this is a viewpoint some people have, I must necessarily agree with it? Sorry, but I don't think that's a valid assumption, and you should have asked if that was a view I actually held before responding to me as it if was.

I'm contesting the viewpoint. Period. You are the only one who's acting like I'm personally attacking you. You didn't dismiss it, implied that it was valid, so I contested the viewpoint.

Give me an example of the difference between "noteworthy luck" and luck that isn't noteworthy. Because I think the fact that you weren't born in a war-torn country, not knowing when you're next meal will be, is pretty damn noteworthy.

You need an example to understand such a straightforward concept? Ok:

The author of twilight has had noteworthy luck because honestly she's not that talented, not does she deserve such a great deal of success, but just because she was exceptionally lucky, she managed to achieved a degree of success clearly not linked just to her talent.

On the other hand, the author of game of thrones and a song of ice and fire published his first book in the 90s and it took a decade or more to have a degree of success coherent to what he deserved and his talent. His success can be linked purely to his talent and how good his work is, not to a degree of luck, meaning that he had no noteworthy luck, everything was born out of talent and the fact he deserves it.

I fail to understand how a talented author who deserves every degree of success that he had and that actually took a very long time to achieve it, despite the talent and quality of his work always being there, should be called lucky and considered to being successful because he was lucky.

[ABED]

I think it's the truth, and I don't think it necessarily implies that. You can choose to act entitled because of that. Or, like you, and much more reasonably, you can choose view it as a transaction.

But if you viewed it as a transaction you wouldn't claim "I made him successful." Transactions have endings. You both benefitted from the transaction, and he owes you nothing more, just as you owe him nothing more.

And a lot of poor people stay poor. Except you've never heard of them because they didn't make anything of themselves.

Not my point. I said just because you're poor doesn't mean you are doomed to stay poor. There are a number of reasons people never make something of themselves, some in their control, some not. That still doesn't mean people can't be self made. Your arguments make it seem like successful people like Toriyama have some unlimited or undefined obligation.

[hleV]

Only if you look at it the wrong way.

The wrong way? Says who?

Me? Because right now you're implying that a big portion of DB fans are "seeing things". Nope, it doesn't work that way. It's the other portion of DB fans that disregards bullshit only because it comes from DB author. Or at least it's way more likely. Again, whether it sucks in general or not is subjective, but whether it's worse than DB or not is not subjective at all and people not blinded by their love for DB or other bullshit reasons can see that. Can you honestly say that with the way Toriyama is now he could make something that would be as popular as DB (either now or if he went to the past)?

Someone made a remark about Toriyama becoming George Lucas 2.0. That's quite spot on, if you ask me.

[jjgp1112]

Only if you look at it the wrong way.

The wrong way? Says who?

Me? Because right now you're implying that a big portion of DB fans are "seeing things". Nope, it doesn't work that way. It's the other portion of DB fans that disregards bullshit only because it comes from DB author. Or at least it's way more likely. Again, whether it sucks in general or not is subjective, but whether it's worse than DB or not is not subjective at all and people not blinded by their love for DB or other bullshit reasons can see that. Can you honestly say that with the way Toriyama is now he could make something that would be as popular as DB (either now or if he went to the past)?

Someone made a remark about Toriyama becoming George Lucas 2.0. That's quite spot on, if you ask me.

So basically, one half of the DBZ fanbase, which happens to agree with you, is perfectly rational and OF COURSE, right, while the other half that disagrees is just blind and tricking themselves. Okie dokie.

What you're saying doesn't do anything to swing the subjectivity argument. All your posts are coming down to is championing your own opinion as the only correct one. Hey, I don't really like a lot of the new tidbits either, but I at least know that what you're saying is pretty off-base.

[Luso Saiyan]

Because right now you're implying that a big portion of DB fans are "seeing things".

No, that's what you're saying and implying. If you can't see past your own limited and subjective opinion on the subject, then there's no point in wasting my time trying to refute your (lack of) logic.

[VegettoEX]

This ends now - I'm not giving out any more free warnings. You're either polite to your fellow fans, or you have strikes lodged against your account, which can and will result in temporary/permanent bans.

[hleV]

@jjgp1112 and @Luso Saiyan,
I hope you do realize that we're not discussing a "like vs dislike" scenario (because like I said, the recent Toriyama's stuff being good or bad is subjective), we're discussing a scenario where a portion of people notices something while the other does not, which has nothing to do with subjectivity. Again, if a portion of people notices that something is off, then surely something is off? It's not just one guy making things up. The other portion of people not happeing to notice anything and it's the same ol' DB to them doesn't make it subjective. If I notice a cat in the bush while another person doesn't it doesn't mean that the cat being in the bush is subjective.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

Merit doesn't determine wether something is created or is successful. Merit comes as a result of that.

I don't mean to be rude, but I still have no idea what this means. Could you explain this a little differently?

What I actually said: "if the series is successful it's because of him, what he created and the choices he made (that's what made us buy it)."

I understand what you mean by this, but I disagree. And I think I've explained myself adequately in previous posts.

Success is determined by many things, hence why I keep saying "a component of". Having a publisher interested in distributing your work is a component of success. Having people interested in your work is another component. Having people buy your work is the result of your success. The merit and responsibility for all this goes to Toriyama, because he was the one who created the work in the first place. The work is what made people be interested in it, thus it's what made him successful. He's the one who created the work, therefore he is the one responsible for his own success.

Again, I think I've already addressed this in previous posts in response to you and other users.

You are the only one who's acting like I'm personally attacking you.

How? I merely said that I thought it was unreasonable to assume that I also held that position.

You didn't dismiss it, implied that it was valid, so I contested the viewpoint.

Show me what in my original post implied it was valid. I specifically said that was my understanding of the argument other people were making. That's not in any way implying that the argument is valid.

You need an example to understand such a straightforward concept?

It's not a straightforward concept to me. I've never heard anyone use the expression "noteworthy luck". Not once. How am I supposed to know what it means?

The author of twilight has had noteworthy luck because honestly she's not that talented, not does she deserve such a great deal of success, but just because she was exceptionally lucky, she managed to achieved a degree of success clearly not linked just to her talent.


On the other hand, the author of game of thrones and a song of ice and fire published his first book in the 90s and it took a decade or more to have a degree of success coherent to what he deserved and his talent. His success can be linked purely to his talent and how good his work is, not to a degree of luck, meaning that he had no noteworthy luck, everything was born out of talent and the fact he deserves it.

Whether or not an author deserves his success is subjective, and not the subject of this discussion. If you think that some people are more deserving of their success than others based on the quality of their work, that's fine, but that's your opinion. The fact of the matter is Twilight and Game of Thrones are both hugely successful. There's something about them that a large amount of people enjoy. What I'm specifically talking are about the reasons behind a person's success. And I can't claim to know exactly why; neither can the authors IMO. But it has to be some combination of talent and luck. There are some works of art that had only meagre success when they were released, but have been viewed positively in retrospect. Same goes for the reverse. It's easy to say in hindsight that Game of Thrones was always going to be a hit, but that's not always the case.

But if you viewed it as a transaction you wouldn't claim "I made him successful."

I never claimed that. I said that everyone who has bought anything DB-related is responsible, in a small way. That's why it's unreasonable to expect an author to pander to your individual tastes.

Not my point. I said just because you're poor doesn't mean you are doomed to stay poor. There are a number of reasons people never make something of themselves, some in their control, some not. That still doesn't mean people can't be self made. Your arguments make it seem like successful people like Toriyama have some unlimited or undefined obligation.

I never claimed that no one who has ever been poor has become rich. Lots of people have, and no doubt they were very talented and competent. But luck is involved as well. That's not to deny talent and hard work. It's just that some people never get the opportunity to make something of their talents. Again, I've never even implied that Toriyama owes us anything or is obligated to do anything. All I said was that he should be grateful to his fans and consider himself lucky that he had the opportunity to work on and improve his talents and that he ending up creating something that was well received by the public. I'm not singling out Toriyama. This applies to everyone who's ever been successful.

[Li'l Lemmy]

@jjgp1112 and @Luso Saiyan,
I hope you do realize that we're not discussing a "like vs dislike" scenario (because like I said, the recent Toriyama's stuff being good or bad is subjective), we're discussing a scenario where a portion of people notices something while the other does not, which has nothing to do with subjectivity. Again, if a portion of people notices that something is off, then surely something is off? It's not just one guy making things up. The other portion of people not happeing to notice anything and it's the same ol' DB to them doesn't make it subjective. If I notice a cat in the bush while another person doesn't it doesn't mean that the cat being in the bush is subjective.

I don't think we can acceptably use that example in this instance, though. o_o

The cat is definitely there. It's a physical thing that you can see, and if need be prove to someone else by having them see it. But literary work is subjective. You can see something and yet may never be able to get someone else to see the same thing that you do. Even the fact that you see "something's wrong" can be denied as subjective.

This thing where fans like or dislike parts of the story isn't new. Some people love the Buu arc. Some people say they hate it. Both can give you a list of reasons why the other group's list is invalid. Which group of fans is right? I certainly can't say with certainty. I don't know that anyone can, given that we are all part of either one group or the other.


~Da Lemmy

[B]

Again, whether it sucks in general or not is subjective, but whether it's worse than DB or not is not subjective at all

You're stating opinions as facts again. "A bunch of people think this way" is not a real argument.

[jjgp1112]

@jjgp1112 and @Luso Saiyan,
I hope you do realize that we're not discussing a "like vs dislike" scenario (because like I said, the recent Toriyama's stuff being good or bad is subjective), we're discussing a scenario where a portion of people notices something while the other does not, which has nothing to do with subjectivity. Again, if a portion of people notices that something is off, then surely something is off? It's not just one guy making things up. The other portion of people not happeing to notice anything and it's the same ol' DB to them doesn't make it subjective. If I notice a cat in the bush while another person doesn't it doesn't mean that the cat being in the bush is subjective.

This isn't really a valid analogy at all. A cat in the bush is something physical and quantifiable that anybody can see. Tidbits that alter the story, on the other hand? Not physical at all. How they affect the story, positively or negatively, is entirely up to the fan. Some people may hate them. Others may find them excellent additions to the story. Others may disregard them entirely because they only accept the things that actually occur in the serialized manga/anime. But there's no "right" or "wrong," and again, everything you're saying is completely subjective.

[hleV]

Because Toriyama contradicting his own story on every given occasion is totally subjective and may be considered a good thing. Please...

The cat is definitely there. It's a physical thing that you can see, and if need be prove to someone else by having them see it. But literary work is subjective. You can see something and yet may never be able to get someone else to see the same thing that you do. Even the fact that you see "something's wrong" can be denied as subjective.

My point was that if a good portion of fans see that something is off, then it's a very good indicator that something is off, even if the other portion of fans doesn't see it. Saying otherwise would be saying that people are imagining things and actually everything is fine. Isn't it way more likely that people are not noticing something or disregarding something due ot their love for DB rather than the other people complaining for something that isn't even there and shouldn't be complained about?