What phrases/opinions/things bring out your irate fanboy?

[fadeddreams5]

Not inherently. GT isn't evidence of anything, it was mostly bad execution. DB was focused on Goku and that's easily the best portion of the story. Plus, it's Goku's story. Why do people love the idea of "the next generation" so much?

Your point was that even if we get a new generation, if the execution is bad, it won't be great. I'm just saying, bad execution makes anything bad. Good execution can make anything enjoyable (e.g. Kid Buu arc).

And people love the idea of the next generation, specifically in Gohan's case, because they enjoyed his role in the Cell Games and wanted him to develop from there in a more, for a lack of a better word, respectable manner. They wanted him to fit the "main role," but he didn't because of Toriyama's direction with the character. When he goes ultimate, it's reminiscent to his SSJ2 form, so people were excited to see him kick butt, but he ultimately does nothing.

In the case of Uub and Pan, it's because they're a clean slate. It's more the novelty of "what will they come up for these characters?!" than actual interest in them. Having them as co-mains may or may not be a good idea. It really does depend on the execution. But the minute they remove Goku from the scene, the fans who have an emotional attachment to him will be quick to hate on the new series, regardless of its quality.

Which doesn't disprove my point? Kid Buu's abilities allow him to defeat Goku, it doesn't matter what they are.

In DB, the level of a character's ki in respect to another's is how you determine how they compare to each other. What I'm saying is Kid Buu was more or less equal to Goku, but he had a unique ability that gave him a strong advantage. Gotenks and Gohan far exceed Goku at that point in the story, so they'd be able to beat Buu fairly easily. Well, Gohan would, anyways.

[Absolute Ice]

To me it does. The main character's father being a super important person in the universe is an awful trope in Shonen that really shouldn't be as popular as it is.

And that is totally okay if to you it does, it is not the case for me. I agree that maybe being the Legendary Super Saiyan is too much for Bardock (again, it varies from person to person, to me even though I agree, I don't see much problem if that is the case), but hey, there is no reason to make him a "whatever guy", we are talking about the father of the protagonist, he must have his own light, even if this light is weak. At least we know Bardock was the strongest (was in the upper ranks as far as a Low-class warrior can go) low-class warrior in his time, and he was kinda different from the other Saiyans, that's totally okay as well to me (but this cannot be okay for other people, got what I wanna mean?).

In other words, being the Legendary should not be that big deal (to make you "incredible" angry), just a whatever matter.

[Doctor.]

-snip-

To quote The Monkey King;

Actually Broly does make an interesting 'dark' counterpart to Goku.

This is because they both take influence from Son Wukong, as Goku gets all the good stuff from Son Wukong's character such as the numbus and nyoi bo, Broly gets the bad things such as being exiled and having a painful power limiting headband. And while they are both OP like Wukong, Goku gets his power slowly at a rate he can manage while Broly gets it all at once and it drives him insane.

Kinda makes me feel bad for him.

There's plenty to like about Broly, just like there's plenty to hate. That's true for all characters. Just because you don't think there's something to like, doesn't mean other people are wrong when they find something. Quality is subjective.

I hate Broly too, but let us not act like our opinion is a fact.

[MCDaveG]

I like the design for Brolli and he has some interesting background and character in Movie 8, being pure evil mental.
But then there goes extremely bad writing of Goku and co. simply being annihilated over the whole movie. There is not interesting choreography, it is just plain dumb skirmish.
But he is like completely retarded in Movie 10, as there is virtually no plot, just plain dumb skirmish, but at least Gohan prevails a little.
It's funny, but I find the Movie 11 being more entertaining. There is Swamp Thing that Goten and Trunks are battling without gotenksing it.

[Zephyr]

The connection here is kinda "WTF?", since we see in many cases fathers being awesome and that passes that onto their sons

That's entirely the point though. Super Saiyan just became "a thing that Goku's dad passed on to him". It makes Goku more of someone who was destined to do something, rather than someone who did it against all odds. In a way it puts a big asterisk next to, or quotations around, Goku's hard work. Part of what made Goku so awesome is that he didn't come from an awesome lineage. He broke the mold, became his own awesome person, etc.

It's fine if that doesn't bother you, but it comes off as unsympathetic to roll your eyes at someone for reasonably being dissatisfied with the execution and implications of something (and by that I mean they're dissatisfied, and it's reasonable for them to be dissatisfied). Now, the extent to which someone can be dissatisfied whilst still being reasonable is another topic altogether.

Mmm not really.. there are pros&cons to Z dub but i DO agree that Kai is superior BUT that doesn't make Z dub TRASH.. it has its redeeming qualities which get overlooked.

Those pros tend to be incredibly overblown.

The Z dub has:
- A voice cast of amateurs (at the time), for the most part
- Resultant voicework that needed/received revisions (but still was inconsistent with the voicework that wasn't revised, making it seem like patchwork)
- Has varying degrees of accuracy to the source material across different story arcs (which naturally results in inconsistent characterization)
- Needlessly wildly varying musical scores

This all reeks of simple, pure, poor craftsmanship. If that doesn't make something "trash" when talking about the quality of it, I don't know what does. It can have certain charms, it can occupy the warmest part of your heart, you can love it to death (I know I do), but that doesn't keep it from being lovable trash. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Sonic Adventure 2 Battle are some of my all time favorite games, but I wouldn't particularly object to them being labeled as trash.

Although, it might benefit everyone if we actually bother to define "trash", so we can have a more clear conversation.

[OkamiTakahashi]

I'm really passionate about timelines and having them all organized in a way that makes sense for me, so it kind of irritates me when people write of GT as being entirely non-canon when Toriyama himself enjoyed it and called it a side story for Dragon Ball. He's always retconning his own work which makes him inconsistent- but GT aside from a few flaws that don't bother me too much, tried to stay consistent. Hell, I bet they could come up with an excuse/reason/cop-out as to why SSJ4 is used instead of SSJG/SSJ. Last time I checked GT events were still relatively canon- the Battle of Gods guide in Japan included some GT events beginning during the period of DB Super. I've also read that the events of Heroes, Ultimate Tenkaiichi, Xenoverse and Online were all intertwined and that Heroes tried to further ground GT as canon by including Goku Jr's friend and something about the Shadow Dragons.

I really ought to relax though; I think I'm too passionate about this stuff and having it make sense for me, so I get tense when people try to convince me of things I've thoroughly researched about the timeline(s) aren't really canon at all. I've made a fool of myself on multiple occasions because of my passion and my headcanon which is rather rough around the edges.

[Rockman X]

Actually Broly does make an interesting 'dark' counterpart to Goku.

No he doesn't! enough with these bullcrap headcanons to justify awful writing judge him for how he was written in the movies not how you view him in your own weird head canon!

You're just brushing off bad writing as mere "opinion" so then Dragon ball evolution is a great movie then? is it just an "opinion" that its a bad movie? No no! i don't think so!

Those pros tend to be incredibly overblown.

No you only focus on the cons it seems yes the actors were amateurish in the early Saiyan/Freeza arcs but after that they got better and again the music is purely SUBJECTIVE i don't like the Japanese music but i don't dismiss the entire dub because of it and neither do i call the music "Trash" there are many kikuchi&Yamamoto tracks that i like.

If that doesn't make something "trash" when talking about the quality of it, I don't know what does.

THIS IS TRASH>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XSeBLPU_s4

[Doctor.]

is it just an "opinion" that its a bad movie?

Yes, and this is what you don't seem to understand. Quality is one-hundred percent subjective.

[fadeddreams5]

is it just an "opinion" that its a bad movie?

Yes, and this is what you don't seem to understand. Quality is one-hundred percent subjective.

Episode 5 of Super was objectively poorly animated, and thus, a poor quality product.

A Goku action figure that is so fragile it will shatter if you drop it once, and also looks nothing like the character it's representing, is a poor quality product.

A video game with a ton of glitches is objectively unplayable and, thus, a poor quality product.

Just...saiya--*shot*

[Doctor.]

Episode 5 of Super was objectively poorly animated, and thus, a poor quality product.

It wasn't objectively poorly animated as one who hasn't seen much anime can think it's good. Even one who has seen a lot of anime can find quality shots.

A Goku action figure that is so fragile it will shatter if you drop it once, and also looks nothing like the character it's representing, is a poor quality product.

One may think that the fact it's so deformed gives it an artistic value.

A video game with a ton of glitches is objectively unplayable and, thus, a poor quality product.

A video game with tons of glitches can still shine in its gameplay and storytelling departments.

Quality is one-hundred percent subjective.

[ABED]

One may think that the fact it's so deformed gives it an artistic value.

Who? Who would think that? More importantly, why? If you make something that's supposed to look like something, but it has shoddy worksmanship, that's a bad product.

Quality is one-hundred percent subjective.

I wouldn't go that far.

[Doctor.]

Who? Who would think that? More importantly, why? If you make something that's supposed to look like something, but it has shoddy worksmanship, that's a bad product.

I don't know. I'm saying someone can think so. It's not something quantifiable like "the sky is blue". A person can think it's a perfectly fine figure even if it's a shitty one in the eyes of every other human being in the planet.

[fadeddreams5]

It wasn't objectively poorly animated as one who hasn't seen much anime can think it's good. Even one who has seen a lot of anime can find quality shots.

It's not up standard. When you compare the quality of this animation with the other episodes, you can't argue its up to par. It's not. If you do, you're just wrong.

One may think that the fact it's so deformed gives it an artistic value.

Well, if we're going by artistic quality, sure. But how about the actual quality of the figure? As in, its durability in comparison to other figures like it that also represent the character? You wouldn't be able to argue that this one is up to par with those.

A video game with tons of glitches can still shine in its gameplay and storytelling departments.

Not if its unplayable. The point is, it's not a polished product, and thus piss poor quality shovelware. You can't say it's not glitchy because it is. Saying otherwise, again, is wrong.

You can enjoy/like all these things. That's fine. What you feel over these things is subjective. But the ultimate quality of something is made of various components that can be objectively gauged. Quality, especially in the artistic sense, can be subjective, but I wouldn't say 100% either.

[ABED]

Who? Who would think that? More importantly, why? If you make something that's supposed to look like something, but it has shoddy worksmanship, that's a bad product.

I don't know. I'm saying someone can think so. It's not something quantifiable like "the sky is blue". A person can think it's a perfectly fine figure even if it's a shitty one in the eyes of every other human being in the planet.

If your toy doesn't look like the thing it's supposed to look like and breaks easily, it's objectively badly made. That's different than saying "I like it."

Also, why would something being deformed GIVE something artistic value?

[ParkerAL]

Also, why would something being deformed GIVE something artistic value?

Maybe he means people who are into unrealistic artwork would like it?

[Doctor.]

It's supposed to look like Goku in your opinion. One person may think the original intent was to make it look deformed to give it some kind of extra meaning. I'm not saying I can find an example of this, I'm saying that people's opinions aren't that straightforward. Just because you think there's no possible way someone can disagree with you in one particular aspect of a piece of work, it doesn't mean that there aren't people that actually do disagree.

[ABED]

Disagreement alone isn't an argument for something being unobjective.

It's supposed to look like Goku in your opinion. One person may think the original intent was to make it look deformed to give it some kind of extra meaning

This really isn't an argument, it's an arbitrary statement. What meaning? And if a Goku toy is labeled "Goku" it is objectively supposed to look like Goku.

Maybe he means people who are into unrealistic artwork would like it?

At least that's something

[dbzfan7]

is it just an "opinion" that its a bad movie?

Yes, and this is what you don't seem to understand. Quality is one-hundred percent subjective.

Do not even bother, there is such a heavy bias of hypocrisy there's no point in arguing. It'll just derail the thread.

[Doctor.]

And if a Goku toy is labeled "Goku" it is objectively supposed to look like Goku.

Really? Let's use the anime as an example. The anime has multiple animators working on it. Obviously, they're supposed to make Goku look like, well, Goku. And the only way a character can look like Goku is to mimic Toriyama's style. Are you saying an animator whose style is the most different from Toriyama's is objectively worse than an animator whose style is the closest to Toriyama's? No, of course not. An animator's style can be vastly different from Toriyama's and he could still put more detail and have more interesting drawings than the animator whose style perfectly mimics Toriyama's.

Nothing is objective about entertainment.

[ABED]

And if a Goku toy is labeled "Goku" it is objectively supposed to look like Goku.

Really? Let's use the anime as an example. The anime has multiple animators working on it. Obviously, they're supposed to make Goku look like, well, Goku. And the only way a character can look like Goku is to mimic Toriyama's style. Are you saying an animator whose style is the most different from Toriyama's is objectively worse than an animator whose style is the closest to Toriyama's? No, of course not. An animator's style can be vastly different from Toriyama's and he could still put more detail and have more interesting drawings than the animator whose style perfectly mimics Toriyama's.

Nothing is objective about entertainment.

That's simply not true, even Toriyama's art style changes. There are certain characteristics that define Goku such as the shape of his hair, and if it doesn't conform to those, then it isn't Goku. If your drawing of Goku looks more like Patton Oswalt, then it's objectively a bad drawing of Goku.

What do you take "objective" to mean?