Toriyama Is Ruining DragonBall?!

[VegettoEX]

I am now actively dishing out account warnings. These are permanent strikes lodged against your account that can and will result in temporary and/or permanent bans.

You agreed to a certain set of rules - twice - prior to registration within this community. Most specifically, you agreed to be polite with your fellow fans. These types of rude and dismissive posts will not be tolerated.

Account bans are server-wide and remove access to the entirety of the website. This includes the forum, yes, but also all of the standard website itself (guides, translations, etc.), podcast, and so on and so forth. When you make your contributions, take a step back and think about what you wish to accomplish, how you're saying it, and what mark you're leaving both on the community and in representing yourself.

[rereboy]

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

And I never assumed that you held that position or stated such. You were the one that assumed that I did. As it is quite clear from my posts, I merely criticized the position itself and quoted you because you didn't dismiss it and implied that it could be a valid point of view.

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.

"And I understand the frustration with what's being done and the reasons behind it".

Well, I don't understand the frustration with the author nor the reasons behind it and all my posts were aimed at showing how that frustration as you put it is completely misguided and their argument of disrespect and "owing" is illogical. You can read all my posts again and you will notice that I'm attacking the argument, not you, and I simply quoted you because you stated that you understand it.

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?

Noteworthy = meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it. Not noteworthy = not meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it.

Noteworthy luck = luck meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it. Not noteworthy luck = luck not meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it.

All you had to do was to follow the definition of noteworthy to understand what I'm saying. This is not an expression. Its literally the use of two words with their proper meaning.

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.

There it is. You are arguing that an author that made it, no matter how talented he is and how much hardship he undergone to make it, made it because of luck, simply because there other talented guys who didn't make it. I can't agree with that.

Those people that didn't make it even though they deserved it, simply didn't get what they deserved due to unfortunate circumstances. Meaning that they had the opposite of luck, they had BAD luck. Does that mean that people who deserved to make it, and actually made it, made it because they were lucky? No, their luck was purely neutral or not noteworthy, a non factor. They got what they deserved, their success was born purely of their talent. Saying that they have success because they are lucky, IMO, is just a way to dismiss their talent and well deserving success.

And of course you can disagree with me regarding whether a particular person deserves more than another, but that doesn't change anything of what I was saying. And what I was saying is that there are people who built their success on their talent and quality of their work and regarding those authors luck was not noteworthy, it was a non factor, they didn't made it because they were lucky and stating such is just dismissing what actually made them successful: their talent.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

"And I understand the frustration with what's being done and the reasons behind it".

Well, I don't understand the frustration with the author nor the reasons behind it and all my posts were aimed at showing how that frustration as you put it is completely misguided and their argument of disrespect and "owing" is illogical. You can read all my posts again and you will notice that I'm attacking the argument, not you, and I simply quoted you because you stated that you understand it.

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?

Noteworthy = meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it. Not noteworthy = not meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it.

Noteworthy luck = luck meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it. Not noteworthy luck = luck not meaningful enough for someone to take note of it, to actually notice it.

All you had to do was to follow the definition of noteworthy to understand what I'm saying. This is not an expression. Its literally the use of two words with their proper meaning.

I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on these points, so I'll drop them as I find them petty (not to mention off-topic). Plus, we've already been warned. I'll just address what I think is more relevant.

There it is. You are arguing that an author that made it, no matter how talented he is and how much hardship he undergone to make it, made it because of luck, simply because there other talented guys who didn't make it. I can't agree with that.

Well, that's essentially what I'm arguing. What separates the talented people who do make it big from the ones who don't is luck.

Those people that didn't make it even though they deserved it, simply didn't get what they deserved due to unfortunate circumstances. Meaning that they had the opposite of luck, they had BAD luck.

That's just another way of expressing it. Those talented people who don't get mainstream success weren't lucky enough to. In other words, they had bad luck.

Does that mean that people who deserved to make it, and actually made it, made it because they were lucky? No, their luck was purely neutral or not noteworthy, a non factor.

I disagree. I think talent and luck are equally significant factors, for reasons I've already given.

They got what they deserved, their success was born purely of their talent. Saying that they have success because they are lucky, IMO, is just a way to dismiss their talent and well deserving success.

I think right from the start I've always counted talent as a factor, so I've never dismissed it. As for whether they've deserved their success, again, that's entirely subjective. And I think that if you do have great success, you have to be talented to an extent. If a lot of people like what you're doing, well, you must be doing something right.

[ABED]

What separates the talented people who do make it big from the ones who don't is luck.

Or drive, or other factors. It's wrong to attribute making it big to one thing.

I'm not even sure what you're ultimate aim is. What are you claiming? My big problem is you writing "we made him successful." It's completely the wrong way to look at it because that implies it was done as a favor.

[rereboy]

That's basically saying that the most talented author in the world that actually had to struggle to be successful was lucky in his success because he is not the most unlucky author in the world. Which is in short why I don't agree with what you are saying. Following your logic, anyone except the most unlucky author in the world is lucky.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

Or drive, or other factors.

Well, yeah. I'm assuming that these people are actually trying.

I'm not even sure what you're ultimate aim is.

World domination.

It's completely the wrong way to look at it because that implies it was done as a favor.

Again, I don't think it implies that at all. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

That's basically saying that the most talented author in the world that actually had to struggle to be successful was lucky in his success because he is not the most unlucky author in the world. Which is in short why I don't agree with what you are saying. Following your logic, anyone except the most unlucky author in the world is lucky.

I'm having trouble understanding this. Could you elaborate please? I think you're implying that the instances I put forward as contributing to a creator's "luck" are in reality quite trivial. Well, I disagree. I think they're very significant.

[ABED]

Drive goes beyond simply "trying".

Again, I don't think it implies that at all.

Really, not at all?

[EXBadguy]

He changed bardock from being a ruthless saiyan who doesn't care about anything but himself to a loving father

Bardock was probably still that way in the original series too, so this isn't a "new" character trait of him.


Anyway, to answer the TC's questions. I say (partially) yes and no. The only thing that was pathetic from Toriyama was the Minus chapter. INCONSISTENCY OVERLOAD!Another thing is that if there is a next DBZ movie, Toriyama just needs to do the important parts of the storytelling and not do the whole movie, cuz I see where half the hate for BOG is coming from, the comedy isn't funny(and that's why I sometimes don't like the original DB). Other than that, he can bring on the new good stuff, as long as it makes sense.

[ABED]

and that's why I sometimes don't like the original DB

DB has plenty of drama and action. It's not all like the Pilaf arc, and poo on a stick (smiling poo at that) is hilarious. I think many people mischaracterize DB.

[EXBadguy]

DB has plenty of drama and action. It's not all like the Pilaf arc, and poo on a stick (smiling poo at that) is hilarious. I think many people mischaracterize DB.

True. Take Yamcha for example, people love to joke about him in the Saiyan saga, "Yamcha here, Yamcha dead"(though I sound like a hypocrite cuz I hate Yamcha too and use this joke)

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3286601/STFU

As for DB though, I just don't like half the comedy it was displayed. Granted, it had more adventure than Z, but I love Z way more than DB for everything, from transitioning to a semi-dark fighting genre to the new and more interesting characters and complex stories.

[ABED]

The stories are just as straightforward as they are in DB. DB has great fights, the Piccolo Daimao arc, Tao Pai Pai, the fight against the second Piccolo, Tenshinhan at his best, Chaozu when he had an interesting personality, Roshi at his best not just comedically.

[B]

As for DB though, I just don't like half the comedy it was displayed.

Dragon Ball's comedy never changes from the start to the end.

[hleV]

As for DB though, I just don't like half the comedy it was displayed.

Dragon Ball's comedy never changes from the start to the end.

Isn't that subjective?

[JulieYBM]

Twenty-First Tenka'ichi Budoukai arc: Gokuu pawns a hot young thing (Lunch) off on an old sage to get what he wants.
Majin Buu arc: Gokuu pawns a hot young thing (Blooma) off on an old sage to get what he wants.

Seems Toriyama's sense of humor is rather consistently poisonous throughout the series to me.

[ABED]

Poisonous, what do you mean?

These jokes are so tongue in cheek I don't see why anyone gets upset. It's like when I see people get upset that Batman kills the guy with the bomb in Batman Returns. It's so over the top cartoony, I don't know why it bothers anyone.

[JulieYBM]

Poisonous, what do you mean?

Grim, not very nice, etc. It's how Toriyama refers to himself and his writing a lot in interviews.

[ABED]

Poisonous, what do you mean?

Grim, not very nice, etc. It's how Toriyama refers to himself and his writing a lot in interviews.

I have no idea what you're getting at. How is his humor poisonous? How is it making it grim, not very nice, etc.

[B]

Poisonous, what do you mean?

Grim, not very nice, etc. It's how Toriyama refers to himself and his writing a lot in interviews.

I have no idea what you're getting at. How is his humor poisonous? How is it making it grim, not very nice, etc.

Cynical; dark.

Obviously, it's not extreme dead-baby humor. But, come on, look at someone like Yamcha and all the awful things Toriyama does to him. Or anything involving Mr. Satan.

[JulieYBM]

Also, this is often misunderstood, but I’m not good with wholesome content. It may seem wholesome at first glance, but there’s actually poison inside.

It is a slightly foolish, fun story, based on this strange three-plus-one tale of friendship, and poison.

Two quotes from recent Toriyama interviews where he states rather clearly he and his works aren't very squeaky clean. This fits in perfectly with his otherwise flippant attitude towards the storytelling of Dragon Ball and his lack of investment in it.

[rereboy]

Cynical; dark.

Obviously, it's not extreme dead-baby humor. But, come on, look at someone like Yamcha and all the awful things Toriyama does to him. Or anything involving Mr. Satan.

What the...? Toriyama humor is basic and effective, simplistic humor, almost childish, barely more complex than poop on a stick when its not actually poop on a stick.

How is that cynical and dark...? You actually believe that Toriyama has an agenda of making Yamcha suffer for example? The worst thing he did to Yamcha was make Bulma get together with Vegeta and that was solely so that there could be another cool Super Saiyan. All the other stuff, namely wounds and such in battles, happened to every other human fighter.