What do you want with Broly?

[Zeon_Grunt]

I would argue the opposite. The reason his books connected is because people love the characters and the stories. It's why The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are hailed as classics and few remember the Silmarillion.

First, Knightfall isn't a great story, and second, you still confuse mediums with stories. Nothing in the medium of comics is inherently for kids. I don't know why you don't understand that.

I would argue they don't actually love the lore more than the characters.

Not remotely what I've argued, and I never said one word about Ash. It was never about that.It was all about demographics. Fine, if Pokemon wants to get out of its rut, move beyond Ash. Find another character to center the story on, but keep the story aimed at kids. The reason Power Rangers has always been able to keep an audience (more or less) is because it doesn't tie itself to any one team anymore but it's always a kids show. That's what Power Rangers is at its core.

Few know the Silmarillion because it wasn't an actual story, it was a collection of letters and notes Tolkien wrote to expand the lore of his fictional universe that was published years after his death. The only people who cared to pick it up were the diehard Tolkien fans.

You can have your own opinions on Knightfall all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we wouldn't have influential and popular stories we did get if comics were artificially limited to telling goofy children's stories like they were in the Gold and Silver Ages.

And you keep confusing the term "franchise," to mean "single story/show," when it actually means "a general title or concept used for creating or marketing a series of products, typically films or television shows." Asking for them expansion of the demographic of a franchise is not the same thing as demanding a specific show in said franchise to change or abandon it's demographic.

And yes, when I'm talking about Marvel and DC's decision to let their comics grow up, I'm not specifically referring to any single story that matured over time, but the medium itself which is also proof that something made primarily for children's consumption isn't limited to forever being exclusively for children's consumption.

I love how you can sit here and argue that you know people better than they do just because you have a certain way of assigning value to entertainment... There are countless people who absolutely hate the cast of the anime or don't care about the characters or the shallow stories in the games but still love the Pokemon franchise.

Power Rangers is actually a perfect example of a franchise that's gained a newer following of older fans thanks to the more adult themes and tones of the more recent comic books. FFS, one of the most popular arcs in the franchise now is a story about an evil Tommy who kills everyone and becomes a murderous tyrant.

[ABED]

I would argue the opposite. The reason his books connected is because people love the characters and the stories. It's why The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are hailed as classics and few remember the Silmarillion.

First, Knightfall isn't a great story, and second, you still confuse mediums with stories. Nothing in the medium of comics is inherently for kids. I don't know why you don't understand that.

Few know the Silmarillion because it wasn't an actual story, it was a collection of letters and notes Tolkien wrote to expand the lore of his fictional universe.

You can have your own opinions on Knightfall all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we wouldn't have influential and popular stories we did get if comics were artificially limited to telling goofy children's stories like they were in the Gold and Silver Ages.

And you keep confusing the term "franchise," to mean "single story/show," when it actually means "a general title or concept used for creating or marketing a series of products, typically films or television shows." Asking for them expansion of the demographic of a franchise is not the same thing as demanding a specific show in said franchise to change or abandon it's demographic.

And yes, when I'm talking about Marvel and DC's decision to let their comics grow up, I'm not specifically referring to any single story that matured over time, but the medium itself which is also proof that something made primarily for children's consumption isn't limited to forever being exclusively for children's consumption.

Which just proves my point, it's all about story.

Comics aren't limited to superhero storie and nothing about the medium or that specific genre are inherently for children, though I would still argue it's better to keep superhero stories aimed at people other than adults. People dressing up in costume to fight crime is silly when you stop to think about it.

Then we're talking about two different things because Marvel and DC aren't individual stories like Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball is a story about Goku written by Akira Toriyama.

You keep confusing the issue. Mediums are inherently different from stories. Mediums aren't limited to any specific demographic or genre. A story on the otherhand has a specific identity.

I'll give you your point about franchises and a single story, but how is it that you understand that but don't get the inherent difference in those and mediums?

[Zeon_Grunt]

Which just proves my point, it's all about story.

Comics aren't limited to superhero storie and nothing about the medium or that specific genre are inherently for children, though I would still argue it's better to keep superhero stories aimed at people other than adults. People dressing up in costume to fight crime is silly when you stop to think about it.

Then we're talking about two different things because Marvel and DC aren't individual stories like Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball is a story about Goku written by Akira Toriyama.

You keep confusing the issue. Mediums are inherently different from stories. Mediums aren't limited to any specific demographic or genre. A story on the otherhand has a specific identity.

I'll give you your point about franchises and a single story, but how is it that you understand that but don't get the inherent difference in those and mediums?

The need for a narrative to exist in order to sell a book doesn't necessarily mean that's the primary reason everyone is drawn to a piece of work.

I didn't think I'd have to clarify, but if my constant referencing to superhero companies and stories, I'm primarily referring to the superhero portion of the comics industry, you know, the one most people default to and have since capes took over the comic book scene with Superman's introduction in the 30s?... And there's absolutely nothing wrong with aiming superhero stories, or any other that's inherently silly, at adults. Something doesn't have to be inappropriate for kids or 100% serious to be for adults.

<.< Dragon Ball is still a franchise and still has the potential to branch out beyond just exploring one character's story and history. Just because no one has tried yet, doesn't mean it's inherently a bad or flawed idea. This is the kind of statement and arguments I was referring to when I said it seems more like you care about maintaining the status quo in a franchise than it's continued health and ability to remain relevant and popular indefinitely.

No, YOU keep confusing the issue because you keep attributing the terms "franchise" and "brand," to mean "the main product/show and nothing else."

I'm not saying they're the exact same as mediums, I'm using one as an example of changing demographics because they have a similar capacity to grow and change on the grounds of not being a limited to a single story, character, or tone but rather a title and concepts (like the universe the story takes place in). A FRANCHISE like Dragon Ball absolutely has the room to expand beyond just telling one character's story, regardless of whether you yourself are open to the idea of watching a show set in the Dragon Ball universe that isn't explicitly about Goku.

For instance, regardless of whether you would watch or enjoy it or not, a spin-off story about Videl's life as Great Saiyaman 2 that primarily focused on her career as a crime fighter and her transition into being a stay and home mother could very much bring in the young and teen girl demographic.

[MyVisionity]

Comics aren't limited to superhero stories and nothing about the medium or that specific genre are inherently for children, though I would still argue it's better to keep superhero stories aimed at people other than adults. People dressing up in costume to fight crime is silly when you stop to think about it.

Is it really that silly though? I mean when you think about human nature and society, I can imagine things going in that direction possibly at some point into the future, under the right circumstances. However I agree that superhero stories are best aimed for children. Although perhaps more adults should be open to exploring children's media for that very reason.

For instance, regardless of whether you would watch or enjoy it or not, a spin-off story about Videl's life as Great Saiyaman 2 that primarily focused on her career as a crime fighter and her transition into being a stay and home mother could very much bring in the young and teen girl demographic.

I like this idea. I think Videl is a character with decent spinoff potential. Although I think that I would prefer it if the focus was about her attempting to leave the stay at home mom lifestyle behind for crimefighting, after trying to balance both.

[Zeon_Grunt]

I like this idea. I think Videl is a character with decent spinoff potential. Although I think that I would prefer it if the focus was about her attempting to leave the stay at home mom lifestyle behind for crimefighting, after trying to balance both.

That would actually probably work much better. My main point was just to express that Dragon Ball's appeal isn't intrinsically tied to Goku and his story. There are different potential stories in the franchise that don't necessarily revolve around Goku and would more than likely draw in more potential fans who may have been turned off by not liking Goku or not being interested in watching a show that's devolved to mostly being topless muscleheads progressively screaming louder and punching each other harder.

[ABED]

Which just proves my point, it's all about story.

Comics aren't limited to superhero storie and nothing about the medium or that specific genre are inherently for children, though I would still argue it's better to keep superhero stories aimed at people other than adults. People dressing up in costume to fight crime is silly when you stop to think about it.

Then we're talking about two different things because Marvel and DC aren't individual stories like Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball is a story about Goku written by Akira Toriyama.

You keep confusing the issue. Mediums are inherently different from stories. Mediums aren't limited to any specific demographic or genre. A story on the otherhand has a specific identity.

I'll give you your point about franchises and a single story, but how is it that you understand that but don't get the inherent difference in those and mediums?

The need for a narrative to exist in order to sell a book doesn't necessarily mean that's the primary reason everyone is drawn to a piece of work.

I didn't think I'd have to clarify, but if my constant referencing to superhero companies and stories, I'm primarily referring to the superhero portion of the comics industry, you know, the one most people default to and have since capes took over the comic book scene with Superman's introduction in the 30s?... And there's absolutely nothing wrong with aiming superhero stories, or any other that's inherently silly, at adults. Something doesn't have to be inappropriate for kids or 100% serious to be for adults.

<.< Dragon Ball is still a franchise and still has the potential to branch out beyond just exploring one character's story and history. Just because no one has tried yet, doesn't mean it's inherently a bad or flawed idea. This is the kind of statement and arguments I was referring to when I said it seems more like you care about maintaining the status quo in a franchise than it's continued health and ability to remain relevant and popular indefinitely.

No, YOU keep confusing the issue because you keep attributing the terms "franchise" and "brand," to mean "the main product/show and nothing else."

I'm not saying they're the exact same as mediums, I'm using one as an example of changing demographics because they have a similar capacity to grow and change on the grounds of not being a limited to a single story, character, or tone but rather a title and concepts (like the universe the story takes place in). A FRANCHISE like Dragon Ball absolutely has the room to expand beyond just telling one character's story, regardless of whether you yourself are open to the idea of watching a show set in the Dragon Ball universe that isn't explicitly about Goku.

For instance, regardless of whether you would watch or enjoy it or not, a spin-off story about Videl's life as Great Saiyaman 2 that primarily focused on her career as a crime fighter and her transition into being a stay and home mother could very much bring in the young and teen girl demographic.

Narratives needing to exist aren't merely about selling books. It's about emotional investment. If lore was as popular as you claim, it would sell. Narratives are necessary because that's what draws people. Emotional investment is what it's about, not exposition.

Your "clarification" isn't necessary because it changes little. Now instead of medium, it's a genre, which again can encompass a lot. Like comedies can include slapstick or dark comedies or dramedies.

DB isn't in danger of being unhealthy at the current moment. There's no reason for it to change beyond the core story, and making it last forever is antithetical to what Dragon Ball is about - growth.

To bring this around to Broly, I have zero interest in the main series or a spin off exploring more about Broly. He's a nothing character that's popular for shallow reasons.

And not to sound rude, but the Videl spinoffs are so un-Dragon Ball they would be better off being an original thing. At that point DB would just be marketing. At most, you could get an episode or single issue side story because that's the most interest I could see an audience sustain for such ideas.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Narratives needing to exist aren't merely about selling books. It's about emotional investment. If lore was as popular as you claim, it would sell. Narratives are necessary because that's what draws people. Emotional investment is what it's about, not exposition.

Your "clarification" isn't necessary because it changes little. Now instead of medium, it's a genre, which again can encompass a lot. Like comedies can include slapstick or dark comedies or dramedies.

DB isn't in danger of being unhealthy at the current moment. There's no reason for it to change beyond the core story, and making it last forever is antithetical to what Dragon Ball is about - growth.

To bring this around to Broly, I have zero interest in the main series or a spin off exploring more about Broly. He's a nothing character that's popular for shallow reasons.

And not to sound rude, but the Videl spinoffs are so un-Dragon Ball they would be better off being an original thing. At that point DB would just be marketing. At most, you could get an episode or single issue side story because that's the most interest I could see an audience sustain for such ideas.

Just because I include lore as a thing people can fall in love with, doesn't mean I said or implied anything close to "a book that's solely lore would sell just as well as a book with an actual narrative." Yes, having a story is necessary to... well, tell a story. That doesn't mean everyone who is a fan of a given franchise likes it for the same reasons you do or values the same aspects of that franchise that you do. Whether you like to admit it or not, a franchise's lore can help sell it.

If you can't see that a FRANCHISE (ie, any series of productions under a shared banner or concept) has just as much potential for growth and expansion as any medium, brand, or genre does, I honestly don't know how else to word it to make you understand. A franchise isn't obligated to limit itself to one character's story or even one genre or tone of stories. None of these are doomed or obligated to hit stagnation during an indefinite run, they just end up doing so when the writers fail to take them in new directions when the old direction stops bringing in the readers/viewers.

Dragon Ball very much is in danger of heading down the same road Pokemon is on if Toei and Toyotaro don't do something to change course. It trying to keep the status quo no matter what is doing exactly that. Also, you can have whatever misgivings you want about the idea of Dragon Ball going on forever, but with Toei setting up the "Dragon Ball Room," and Toriyama specifically grooming and handing the series off to a new writer, it's pretty clear that's exactly where they're trying to take the franchise; perpetual sustainability and profits. They aren't going just let the 15th most profitable franchise of all time end forever and stop generating revenue because some fans think an ending would be better for the integrity of the franchise. The only way that's going to happen is if the fans suddenly stopped financially supporting it like they did when GT was destroying the reputation and good will the previous series built up.

Regardless of that, it is possible for a franchise whose whole point is character growth to continue on forever. It's impossible for one story based around one character to remain fresh and continue forever, but if they allow their franchise to grow outside what it was initially intended for, they can pull it off. There's no reason we can't have a version of Dragon Ball that's similar to Jo Jo in that once one character's story and growth have reached their limit, it transitions into a new series that tells a different generation's story and adventures.

What part of YOUR OPINIONS ON THE FRANCHISE AREN'T UNIVERSAL aren't you getting? Just because YOU don't like Broly or want to see him come back to be further developed, doesn't mean the rest of us don't or that bringing him back and developing him further would be a bad thing. YOU not being interested in the idea of something doesn't mean that no one is or that there isn't a market for said ideas. Next time you want to interject in this discussion with an opinion about whether you'd find a certain concept interesting or not, don't. Your personal interest levels for a given concept are wholly irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not a franchise that started as children's entertainment can or should grow to encompass more audiences.

The concept of a Videl spinoff only seems "un-Dragon Ball," to you because, as you mentioned earlier, you (incorrectly) think the whole draw of the franchise is Goku and his story. In your eyes, it seems, the series started as Goku's story and therefore it can't change from that without no longer being "Dragon Ball."

[ABED]

Help, sure, but it's overrated as a selling point.

None of these are doomed or obligated to hit stagnation during an indefinite run, they just end up doing so when the writers fail to take them in new directions when the old direction stops bringing in the readers/viewers.

Every franchise inevitably becomes creatively stagnant after a while because there's little fresh territory to tread. After a certain point it's mostly about maintaining financial viability. I'm very aware that franchises continue for as long as they are profitable.

The only way that's going to happen is if the fans suddenly stopped financially supporting it like they did when GT was destroying the reputation and good will the previous series built up.

This is a reductive analysis. GT was the tail end of a decade long nonstop run. Audience fatigue had already set in before GT aired. It wasn't sudden. GT's quality or lack thereof only accelerated the decline. And name a franchise that doesn't hit a point of stagnation after a certain point?

Regardless of that, it is possible for a franchise whose whole point is character growth to continue on forever. It's impossible for one story based around one character to remain fresh and continue forever, but if they allow their franchise to grow outside what it was initially intended for, they can pull it off. There's no reason we can't have a version of Dragon Ball that's similar to Jo Jo in that once one character's story and growth have reached their limit, it transitions into a new series that tells a different generation's story and adventures.

DB is not Jojo, The entire point of Jojo was it was a generational story. Even if a new generation were to take over the story, it would still be stagnant because so much ground had already been tread. It would be the same song, different verse. No story, no matter how many spin offs or generations can go forever and remain fresh. The most we can hope for is some interesting moments, of which Broly is not one.

The concept of a Videl spinoff only seems "un-Dragon Ball," to you because, as you mentioned earlier, you (incorrectly) think the whole draw of the franchise is Goku and his story. In your eyes, it seems, the series started as Goku's story and therefore it can't change from that without no longer being "Dragon Ball."

You incorrectly claim that I think Goku is the draw of the franchise. What I said was DB is about Goku. It's as much his story as Yu Yu Hakusho is about Yusuke or Supernatural is about Sam and Dean. Even in the franchise at large the world has a feel and a tone, like any fictional universe. What is Dragon Ball to you?

[MyVisionity]

A Videl spinoff might be "un-Dragon Ball", but that's kind of the point of a spinoff. To go off and become its own thing.

Of course, you could still tap into Dragon Ball by rekindling Videl's interest in the martial arts. Not to mention including Satan in the cast while bringing back Sharpner and Erasa to mix things up. I could go on and on. And while you may only get a single episode out of the concept initially, sometimes that's all you need for the fans to get on board and turn it into a series. Like any backdoor pilot for a spinoff.

I'm not sure about spinning off Broli, as he seems like the kind of character that only works for the characters around him to react to, instead of someone who can be at the center of their own show and connect with the audience.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Help, sure, but it's overrated as a selling point.

Every franchise inevitably becomes creatively stagnant after a while because there's little fresh territory to tread. After a certain point it's mostly about maintaining financial viability. I'm very aware that franchises continue for as long as they are profitable.

The only way that's going to happen is if the fans suddenly stopped financially supporting it like they did when GT was destroying the reputation and good will the previous series built up.

This is a reductive analysis. GT was the tail end of a decade long nonstop run. Audience fatigue had already set in before GT aired. It wasn't sudden. GT's quality or lack thereof only accelerated the decline. And name a franchise that doesn't hit a point of stagnation after a certain point?

Regardless of that, it is possible for a franchise whose whole point is character growth to continue on forever. It's impossible for one story based around one character to remain fresh and continue forever, but if they allow their franchise to grow outside what it was initially intended for, they can pull it off. There's no reason we can't have a version of Dragon Ball that's similar to Jo Jo in that once one character's story and growth have reached their limit, it transitions into a new series that tells a different generation's story and adventures.

DB is not Jojo, The entire point of Jojo was it was a generational story. Even if a new generation were to take over the story, it would still be stagnant because so much ground had already been tread. It would be the same song, different verse. No story, no matter how many spin offs or generations can go forever and remain fresh. The most we can hope for is some interesting moments, of which Broly is not one.

The concept of a Videl spinoff only seems "un-Dragon Ball," to you because, as you mentioned earlier, you (incorrectly) think the whole draw of the franchise is Goku and his story. In your eyes, it seems, the series started as Goku's story and therefore it can't change from that without no longer being "Dragon Ball."

You incorrectly claim that I think Goku is the draw of the franchise. What I said was DB is about Goku. It's as much his story as Yu Yu Hakusho is about Yusuke or Supernatural is about Sam and Dean. Even in the franchise at large the world has a feel and a tone, like any fictional universe. What is Dragon Ball to you?

"Overrated" why? Because you say so and don't inherently find lore interesting? Again, you're not everyone... Just because you think lore has no value, doesn't mean everyone else believes the same thing.

Meanwhile, the Disney Princess and Mickey Mouse franchises have never shown stagnation in the 21 and 92 years respectively that they've been a thing. Do you know why these two franchises have managed to stay fresh and popular all this time? It's because they don't try to force every single one of their pieces of work to be basically the same thing. Gundam may have had a few stinkers over the decades, but it's hardly considered as having stagnated by it's fanbase as Sunrise and Bandai have done an excellent job of shaking up each series enough to make it still feel fresh despite the fact that it's still "kids fight in wars using giant robots," after all this time. Also, Mario and James Bond have managed to stay fresh and relevant for basically their entire lifespans without many, if any, complaints about stagnation from the fandoms.

I'm very apprehensive to believe "franchise fatigue," was the primary cause for the drop in ratings that eventually lead to GT being cancelled. The series' rating hit a record high in the beginning of the Boo arc and almost immediately started dropping off (to the point where, the Gohan/Kibito episode had a 27% ratings share and by the episode inside Boo, ratings dropped from the average 20% to a meager 12% ratings share). Couple the fact that the Boo arc is generally considered the worst part of the original story with the abysmal followup that was GT and an argument can absolutely be made that GT was cancelled, not because everyone was tired of Dragon Ball Z, but because people started walking away with Boo and GT pushed the rest of the fanbase away.

Just because it's not Jojo or wasn't conceived to be like JoJo, doesn't mean the franchise can't go down that route to keep things fresh. Jesus Christ dude, a franchise isn't inherently limited to whatever it's initial intentions, focus, or demographic were. They can change and doing so isn't a bad thing. Things that change with time to remain relevant tend to be held in higher regard for longer than those that refuse to change ever and just burn themselves out until no one wants to watch anymore.

Ok, if you don't think Goku is the main draw of the franchise, what do you think is? The story that most people admit isn't that good in the first place? The fighting? Also, Yu Yu Hakusho and Supernatural can absolutely be carried on without the original casts with spin-offs or sequels because their universes are explicitly made in a way that they offer countless different types of stories that can be told in them. Pretty much any work of fiction with good world building and the foresight to not name the franchise after the main character can carry on without it's original cast if the writers aren't incompetent.

What is Dragon Ball to me? It's the children's comic book that introduced one of the most awesome fantasy worlds/universes introduced since Tolkien died. The concept of martial artists who can fire energy blasts and blow up planets is far more interesting than any given character or story arc in the franchise.

[TheNingen]

I'd argue that Pokemon is the biggest example in ABED's favor. It keeps trying to expand its lore and Pokemon and it's honestly fucking awful for it. Pokemon is stale. Another example is current Star Wars. It has a lore and powers it tried to expand with the new trilogy. It fell on its face and sucked.

Fans often don't know what they want. And when they get what they think they want, they hate it. Dragon Ball can't win there. And it's ridiculously easy to critique an already existing thing compared to coming up with something new.

You want a Videl spinoff? Cool. It wouldn't work. Because no one in enough fan quantity cares about Videl. No one wanted to see Gohan as Great Saiyaman. Why would they want stay at home Videl mom adventures or her fighting crime?

Or using a new protagonist/set of protags. Okay. What are their goals? Has to be about martial arts. Because that's one of the cores of Dragon Ball that can't be changed. So their goals are...becoming stronger? Exploring more places to learn and improve? We have that in Goku. And the Dragon Balls HAVE to be involved. They're involved in literally every arc of the story. Their namesake is the title of the show.

This is the core problem people don't get. You can't do something too new without betraying the spirit of what makes something what it is/was. You'll either change it to where it should have been it's own original thing because it's so vastly different and not in spirit of what you were going for, or it's the exact same as what you've seen and you'll complain about it anyway. There are core things about Dragon Ball that you cannot change. As there is with any story. And saying 'WELL THIS HAS DONE IT" isn't a valid argument when the shows or properties you're bringing up are either different in tone, genre, or intent to what Dragon Ball is.

Which is at its core: A martial arts/adventure story about a man named Goku who seeks to better himself and fight strong people and sometimes goes on adventures with his friends/saves multiverses. DC and Marvel are not comparable. Power Rangers is not comparable. JoJo is not comparable. They're not going for the same thing Dragon Ball is and do not employ the conventions that Dragon Ball does.

And even bringing up Yu Yu Hakusho. People care about the core 5. They care about Keiko, Botan, etc. No one would watch if they focused on a new group because that isn't who they watched YYH for. And back to Star Wars...when it began with the new trilogy, no one gave a fuck about Rey or the new characters. They wanted the old ones.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

TheNingen, you managed to misrepresent every show and fandom you described.

Star Wars in particular is an odd example to use in argument about whether spinoffs work because Star Wars has so much well received and beloved spin off material. You've got live action shows like The Mandalorian, cartoons like the Clone Wars, videogames like Knights of the Old Republic, comics like Lando, and too many books list. Star Wars has branched out into every type of media except interpretive dance and its done so successfully each time. That the Prequels and Sequels weren't on par with the Original Trilogy has a lot more to do with the people in charge than it does whether the ideas themselves were sound.

[Zeon_Grunt]

I'd argue that Pokemon is the biggest example in ABED's favor. It keeps trying to expand its lore and Pokemon and it's honestly fucking awful for it. Pokemon is stale. Another example is current Star Wars. It has a lore and powers it tried to expand with the new trilogy. It fell on its face and sucked.

Fans often don't know what they want. And when they get what they think they want, they hate it. Dragon Ball can't win there. And it's ridiculously easy to critique an already existing thing compared to coming up with something new.

You want a Videl spinoff? Cool. It wouldn't work. Because no one in enough fan quantity cares about Videl. No one wanted to see Gohan as Great Saiyaman. Why would they want stay at home Videl mom adventures or her fighting crime?

Or using a new protagonist/set of protags. Okay. What are their goals? Has to be about martial arts. Because that's one of the cores of Dragon Ball that can't be changed. So their goals are...becoming stronger? Exploring more places to learn and improve? We have that in Goku. And the Dragon Balls HAVE to be involved. They're involved in literally every arc of the story. Their namesake is the title of the show.

This is the core problem people don't get. You can't do something too new without betraying the spirit of what makes something what it is/was. You'll either change it to where it should have been it's own original thing because it's so vastly different and not in spirit of what you were going for, or it's the exact same as what you've seen and you'll complain about it anyway. There are core things about Dragon Ball that you cannot change. As there is with any story. And saying 'WELL THIS HAS DONE IT" isn't a valid argument when the shows or properties you're bringing up are either different in tone, genre, or intent to what Dragon Ball is.

Which is at its core: A martial arts/adventure story about a man named Goku who seeks to better himself and fight strong people and sometimes goes on adventures with his friends/saves multiverses. DC and Marvel are not comparable. Power Rangers is not comparable. JoJo is not comparable. They're not going for the same thing Dragon Ball is and do not employ the conventions that Dragon Ball does.

And even bringing up Yu Yu Hakusho. People care about the core 5. They care about Keiko, Botan, etc. No one would watch if they focused on a new group because that isn't who they watched YYH for. And back to Star Wars...when it began with the new trilogy, no one gave a fuck about Rey or the new characters. They wanted the old ones.

Pokemon isn't stalling out because they keep adding more lore and Pokemon to the series, they're stalling out because they've been shoving the exact same formula and stories into their anime and games for going on 30 years. That said, Pokemon itself isn't struggling with sales, just the anime is. The video games and card games still sell very well regardless of how many older fans stopped playing because they got tired of being shit on or completely ignored by Nintendo and the Pokemon Company.

Likewise, the problem with Star Wars isn't that the universe is too expansive and they keep piling more lore on top of old lore. It's, as the other guy said, because the fans have been miffed that we haven't had a universally accepted "good," Star Wars mainline entry since Return of the Jedi (and even that gets it's own level of hate because it isn't as good or mature as the original Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back). The lore expanding spin-offs and video games attached to Star Wars are far more popular than the actual numbered movies are.

Any large enough fanbase is going to look like it doesn't know what it wants if they all try to use the exact same program to try and entertain all the different audiences. Different groups within and outside of a given fanbase have different reasons for wanting or not wanting to engage with or support a certain franchise or brand.

Plenty of people in this day and age adore Gohan and the Great Saiyaman schtick. Hell, the highest rated episode of DBZ's original run wasn't a combat episode based around Goku, it was the episode Gohan transforms at the tournament and reveals his identity as the Gt. Saiyaman and Golden Warrior to his classmates and the tournament audience.

Dragon Ball doesn't necessarily have to be about martial artists in all of it's media and stories. Just because it's spent the last 30 years catering to young boys who only give a shit about violence and action, doesn't mean they can't make a side program for, say, fans who'd like a more slice-of-life kind of show about living in this universe.

What the initial ideas, themes, and goals of a franchise are or were is entirely irrelevant to it's ability to grow and expand beyond solely catering to it's original demographic or audience. No amount of "but the stories are fundamentally different kinds," is going to change that no work of fiction is obligated to continue telling that exact same kind of story ad nauseum.

The fact that some fans are exclusively a fan of the old works in exactly how they played out doesn't negate that other audiences are also interested in a franchise's premise and universe but don't necessarily like the specifics of the original source material. Likewise, just because nostalgia blinded fanboys wouldn't accept moving on with a new cast and exploring the universe and setting itself over just focusing on the story of the original main character, doesn't mean the fans who aren't . A world like Yu Yu Hakusho has a ton of potential to tell stories of different characters and casts before and after main character's time. Same for Bleach, or Full Metal Alchemist. When you make a world where almost everyone is inherently special and can change the course of history, you can write pretty much any kind of story into that world and expand a franchise's fan and consumer base far beyond the initial fandom.

It's narrow minded "fans" like yourself who cause franchises to stagnate and die off to begin with. The belief that because a franchise started with a specific type of story, or telling a specific character's story, or aimed at a specific audience, that it cannot evolve past it's initial conception and intent without "betraying what it is," is why many companies are afraid to branch out and make more money. Doesn't help that a lot of people who were fans of the original version are adamantly against anyone who doesn't like the original being brought into the fold or treated as just as valid and important as they are.

[MasenkoHA]

Dragon Ball doesn't necessarily have to be about martial artists in all of it's media and stories. Just because it's spent the last 30 years catering to young boys who only give a shit about violence and action, doesn't mean they can't make a side program for, say, fans who'd like a more slice-of-life kind of show about living in this universe.

But why? What is the point? Why is this story that most fans USED to generally agreed lasted longer than it should have (with most fans thinking it should have ended at Freeza) needing an expanded universe with unrelated side programs? I hate to be a broken record but the original anime ran for 508 episodes plus 20 or so movies, tv specials, and OVAs. It doesn't need more.

What the initial ideas, themes, and goals of a franchise are or were is entirely irrelevant to it's ability to grow and expand beyond solely catering to it's original demographic or audience.

This reeks of "I want this show I enjoyed as a child to cater to me as an adult" there are plenty of other people on this forum who can point you to more adult oriented material similar to Dragon Ball if you're inclined. Not me, but others.

It's narrow minded "fans" like yourself who cause franchises to stagnate and die off to begin with. The belief that because a franchise started with a specific type of story, or telling a specific character's story, or aimed at a specific audience, that it cannot evolve past it's initial conception and intent without "betraying what it is," is why many companies are afraid to branch out and make more money. Doesn't help that a lot of people who were fans of the original version are adamantly against anyone who doesn't like the original being brought into the fold or treated as just as valid and important as they are.

The fact that Dragon Ball started out as a simple Journey to the West story by way of Dr.Slump and then evolved into a martial arts epic that evolved into a multi-universal kung fu action series shows the show has evolved past its initial conception and intent. Literally nobody would argue with you that it hasn't. Quite the opposite in fact. Dragon Ball doesn't need an expanded universe. It didn't even need a revival series. Hell, it didn't need an anime exclusive series that immediately followed where the manga ended back in 1996.

[WittyUsername]

The fact that Dragon Ball started out as a simple Journey to the West story by way of Dr.Slump and then evolved into a martial arts epic that evolved into a multi-universal kung fu action series shows the show has evolved past its initial conception and intent. Literally nobody would argue with you that it hasn't. Quite the opposite in fact. Dragon Ball doesn't need an expanded universe. It didn't even need a revival series. Hell, it didn't need an anime exclusive series that immediately followed where the manga ended back in 1996.

While I don’t disagree with the notion that Dragon Ball didn’t really need a revival, I think Zeon’s point was that if Dragon Ball is going to continue to stick around with new stories for an indefinite period of time, then they might as well change things up by giving people something different. At least, that’s what I assume the argument is coming from.

[Zeon_Grunt]

But why? What is the point? Why is this story that most fans USED to generally agreed lasted longer than it should have (with most fans thinking it should have ended at Freeza) needing an expanded universe with unrelated side programs? I hate to be a broken record but the original anime ran for 508 episodes plus 20 or so movies, tv specials, and OVAs. It doesn't need more.

What do you mean "what's the point?" The point should be pretty obvious if you stop looking at it from the perspective of a fan that wants a good story and started looking at it from the perspective of the suits who control the series. The point is to keep the franchise going indefinitely and continue as a perpetual revenue generator.

Regardless of any "need" to continue as an ongoing franchise, that doesn't change that this is what Toei and Toriyama intended to do with the franchise for the past few years. If it has any chance at maintaining relevance and popularity as a perpetual franchise, it has to eventually be allowed to evolve past simply being mindless entertainment for 10 year old boys who just want to see explosions and people getting punched really hard.

This reeks of "I want this show I enjoyed as a child to cater to me as an adult" there are plenty of other people on this forum who can point you to more adult oriented material similar to Dragon Ball if you're inclined. Not me, but others.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but there's NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH WANTING THE THINGS AND SHOWS YOU ENJOYED AS A KID TO GROW UP WITH YOU. Simply because something was originally intended for children's entertainment doesn't mean the only correct way to deal with feeling like the franchise doesn't care about you anymore is to abandon it and any emotional or sentimental ties to it entirely.

The fact that Dragon Ball started out as a simple Journey to the West story by way of Dr.Slump and then evolved into a martial arts epic that evolved into a multi-universal kung fu action series shows the show has evolved past its initial conception and intent. Literally nobody would argue with you that it hasn't. Quite the opposite in fact. Dragon Ball doesn't need an expanded universe. It didn't even need a revival series. Hell, it didn't need an anime exclusive series that immediately followed where the manga ended back in 1996.

And yet some people adamantly think that the new direction the series took after changing from a comedic action adventure is the only direction the series should be allowed to progress. They allowed it to evolve in it's early days to appeal to a new crowd, but after they found a version they love, they refuse to let it change into anything else or appeal to anyone else without acting like someone is trying to remove their teeth with a screwdriver and hammer.

While I don’t disagree with the notion that Dragon Ball didn’t really need a revival, I think Zeon’s point was that if Dragon Ball is going to continue to stick around with new stories for an indefinite period of time, then they might as well change things up by giving people something different. At least, that’s what I assume the argument is coming from.

That is actually spot on and exactly what I've been trying to say this whole thread. The main issue is that some people adamantly refuse to accept any plans for the future of the franchise that isn't "keep doing the same thing until no one is willing to watch it anymore, then end it," or "just end it already."

[JulieYBM]

Pokemon isn't stalling out because they keep adding more lore and Pokemon to the series, they're stalling out because they've been shoving the exact same formula and stories into their anime and games for going on 30 years. That said, Pokemon itself isn't struggling with sales, just the anime is. The video games and card games still sell very well regardless of how many older fans stopped playing because they got tired of being shit on or completely ignored by Nintendo and the Pokemon Company.

The animated franchise for Pokemon has been steadily improving in quality for fourteen years now. To say nothing of the more auteur-driving mini-series like The Origin, Generations and Twilight Wings, the Satoshi side of the franchise has made strong steps to have weightier plots, stronger characterization and more exciting battles. Diamond & Pearl brought us Tomioka Atsuhiro as head writer which led to serious series-stretching character arcs for Satoshi, Shinji, Hikari, several Pokemon and Hikari's rivals. Tomioka bent over backwards to make the battles more complicated while Asada Yuuji and Iwane Masa'aki bent over backwards to make the directing and animation--something Pokemon was notoriously bad at in the previous two series--higher-quality. Asada personally storyboarded five of the last twenty-two episodes, personally directed them, and then Iwane personally animated them alone so that he could maximize the budget to make the battles as well animated as possible.

This doesn't even begin to touch upon XY, which saw an 20-30% increase in drawings allowed per episode and saw Iwane not only soloing every six episodes but also being allowed to solo four TV specials about Satoshi's main rival using even more time and drawings than a normal episode. Head Writer Tomioka also bent over backwards to write almost all of the gym battles himself as well as the Flare Gang arc at the end of the series.

Sun & Moon is basically revolutionary for the franchise. Satoshi's personality got a face-lift that made him cheekier and personalities in general became driven by the character animation and directing of the series. Dragon Ball GT Head Writer Matsui Aya took over as the head writer and steered the stories toward slice-of-life stories while maintaining strong characterization for the expanded cast. Best Wishes first experimented with having multiple rivals appear often to clash with the main cast but Sun & Moon outright expanded the main cast to include five classmates, Doctor Kukui, Rotom Zukan, and Doctor Burnett later on. The series also touched up on death and learning to accept it in at least three separate episodes. Lastly, it gave girls really vividly defined girl characters in Lilie, Mao and Suiren--the latter two of which shared some soft-yuri scenes.

Pokemon's animated franchise has grown up and matured tremendously, even if it's still aimed at children.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Pokemon's animated franchise has grown up and matured tremendously, even if it's still aimed at children.

And yet it's apparently not enough to keep the series' ratings and viewership from tanking to the point where they were called dismal as recently as Dec '18 and the home releases sales have only been dropping as well.

Clearly maturing a bit while still rehashing the same stories and exclusively aiming at the one demographic isn't doing the animation department any favors in drawing in either old or new viewers. It makes it abundantly clear when you go and read the comment sections on Pokemon forums and such discussing why the anime is doing so bad. The general consensus is that people are tired of show being the exact same thing 20 years later and refuses to have any progress narratively, chronologically, or tonally. Likewise, a large number of people atest that the ratings have been steadily dropping since before the Kanto

Also, Sun and Moon may be "revolutionizing" the series in the sense that it's seemingly (according to posts online) becoming more like a more over the top, exaggerated comedy show, but the idea that it's objectively improving and gaining more viewers outside 10 year olds isn't backed by any kind of statistics I can find online and the statistics we do have point towards viewership declining since the transition from X/Y, not increasing.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

While I don’t disagree with the notion that Dragon Ball didn’t really need a revival, I think Zeon’s point was that if Dragon Ball is going to continue to stick around with new stories for an indefinite period of time, then they might as well change things up by giving people something different. At least, that’s what I assume the argument is coming from.

That is actually spot on and exactly what I've been trying to say this whole thread. The main issue is that some people adamantly refuse to accept any plans for the future of the franchise that isn't "keep doing the same thing until no one is willing to watch it anymore, then end it," or "just end it already."

Dragon Ball has been frozen in amber since the Buu Saga and I don't know if the fanbase understands how much of modern DB is built on the smallest sliver of the story. Before then the status quo changed with every new arc.

I might get hate for this but, Vegeta is the original sin here. Part of what kept the story constantly evolving was mixing up the cast; who Goku's new rivals would be and how his relationship with those rivals would change. When Vegeta became Goku's permanent number 2 the stories haven't had the room to grow they otherwise would. At the end of the day each arc has to be about a threat that both Goku and Vegeta can fight and has to end with Goku on top and Vegeta maybe a single step below him. Worse still, because we've been sold on Goku/Vegeta as the core of the show they have to show up everywhere together even when the arc doesn't have room for two bonus main characters (or a bonus main villain for Vegeta to fight).

[JulieYBM]

Pokemon's animated franchise has grown up and matured tremendously, even if it's still aimed at children.

And yet it's apparently not enough to keep the series' ratings and viewership from tanking to the point where they were called dismal as recently as Dec '18 and the home releases sales have only been dropping as well.

Clearly maturing a bit while still rehashing the same stories and exclusively aiming at the one demographic isn't doing the animation department any favors in drawing in either old or new viewers. It makes it abundantly clear when you go and read the comment sections on Pokemon forums and such discussing why the anime is doing so bad. The general consensus is that people are tired of show being the exact same thing 20 years later and refuses to have any progress narratively, chronologically, or tonally. Likewise, a large number of people atest that the ratings have been steadily dropping since before the Kanto

Also, Sun and Moon may be "revolutionizing" the series in the sense that it's seemingly (according to posts online) becoming more like a more over the top, exaggerated comedy show, but the idea that it's objectively improving and gaining more viewers outside 10 year olds isn't backed by any kind of statistics I can find online and the statistics we do have point towards viewership declining since the transition from X/Y, not increasing.

People have things other than Pokemon to watch. Ratings are going to drop over time. Home video sales--a literal collector's format--are going to drop. This is to say nothing of the fact that nobody knows how these things are being eaten-into by streaming.

Pokemon fans old enough to use forums are notoriously loud and stupid, so I wouldn't place any stock into their complaints. People will complain over a Pokemon's personality causing conflict in a story of all things or the series focusing on gags over battles. Hell, people are complaining about Gou from the 2019 series capturing Pokemon as if there should be undue pomp and circumstance for such a thing on every single occasion.