Explain to me how Beerus is original or a good character

[Xeztin]

Nothing is original these days. You're in denial if you think any new character in any series out there is 100% original.

This ^ This right here should be platted in Gold and hung on a wall, I've said it till I've turned Blue and headed over. It's fresh for Dragon Ball as the others above me has said... How Long has it been since we had a animal based Villain? By saying Beerus isn't original is basically saying Naruto, Luffy, and every other character/manga that came after Dragon Ball isn't original. It's going to happen and it can't be helped at this point in time and there is not one character you can make up that's traits hasn't been explored before in another persons work.

[Cipher]

If you want to be so reductionary (is that even a word...?)

I have nothing else to add to this, but: "reductive."

Plus is is nice to see a bad guy turn good! for once.

Wait, what?

[Hellspawn28]

When something is a rehash then it depends on how it is rehash. Lord Slug is view as a rehash of Piccolo Daimao because they are both evil nameks that use the Dragon Balls to restore their youth and both wanted to rule the Earth. #13 and Cell can both absorb two other cyborgs to reach their ultimate form and both are created by Dr. Gero's computer to finish Gero's goal to kill Goku. So #13 can be view as a rehash of Cell. I don't view Beerus as a rehash of Buu because they are too different from each other besides liking food.

[Lord Beerus]

He's a character that doesn't hide behind any gimmicks and has a very morally ambiguous and unbiased personality, that while can be interpreted as somewhat simple, it's also quite mature, neutral and is in some degree, quite wise. His greyish morality is a breath of fresh of air in a franchise that has treated everything as black and white for so many years.

[BlazingFiddlesticks]

He's a character that doesn't hide behind any gimmicks and has a very morally ambiguous and unbiased personality, that while can be interpreted as somewhat simple, it's also quite mature, neutral and is in some degree, quite wise.

He is an exercise in Toriyama's doing a lot with a little; bouncing between a petulant child and a detached deity who has clearly been around the block a few times in just the right rhythm to catch both ends sounds pretty hard on paper.

[Pocket-God]

Yeah...Beerus sucks....like...a lot....but Whis on the other hand is strangely awesome, interesting and entertaining.

[Li'l Lemmy]

My problem with threads like this- and I'm not calling out the OP in particular; I'm speaking in a more general sense- is that the person making them by nature already has a predetermined opinion that he doesn't actually want to waver from, and is usually posting the thread for the purpose of disputing the dissenting opinions he requests. The thread can still engender good discussion amongst its participants, but as a rule I tend to be wary of "tell me why/explain to me/challenge my perception"-type threads specifically because of the hidden agenda usually contained therein, which oftentimes leads to problems.

But, that's just me. Carry on.

(*shrug*)

[Cetra]

Honestly, I do not think Beerus is original or good. The best thing for me comes from his German voice actor. He does not even look like a Dragon Ball character to me and is a hypocrite.

[Nex Carnifex]

I respect the gesture of trying to experiment with a different type of villain, but in Beerus's situation it's not his status as a morally neutral adjudicator bound to the natural conventions of the universe that's the focus of his character -- more often than not it's this inane desire to be fed and waited on at the beck and call of Whis or the Saiyan trainee that is the context of whatever scene he's in. The nature of his character and status should beget a more earnest and sober interpretation yet these attributes have been treated like a loosely defined background framework instead of a point of contention past his introduction in BoG.

One question that could be brought forth which may help to add further depth to his position would be the justification and morality behind annihilating whole civilisations on a whim simply because they didn't have a perfect culinary dish for him when there are likely so many uninhabited worlds across the universe that could be easily destroyed without sacrificing innocent bystanders in the pursuit of maintaining balance between destruction and creation. The genocides he's perpetrated and the justification behind them could introduce a new dynamic by DB standards. However, it's like this dynamic goes unacknowledged and the character as a whole is treated more like a childish creature whose deluged in food and wrapped in silly putty.

So basically like Super Buu but less pure evil

[BlazingFiddlesticks]

I respect the gesture of trying to experiment with a different type of villain, but in Beerus's situation it's not his status as a morally neutral adjudicator bound to the natural conventions of the universe that's the focus of his character -- more often than not it's this inane desire to be fed and waited on at the beck and call of Whis or the Saiyan trainee that is the context of whatever scene he's in. The nature of his character and status should beget a more earnest and sober interpretation yet these attributes have been treated like a loosely defined background framework instead of a point of contention past his introduction in BoG.

One question that could be brought forth which may help to add further depth to his position would be the justification and morality behind annihilating whole civilisations on a whim simply because they didn't have a perfect culinary dish for him when there are likely so many uninhabited worlds across the universe that could be easily destroyed without sacrificing innocent bystanders in the pursuit of maintaining balance between destruction and creation. The genocides he's perpetrated and the justification behind them could introduce a new dynamic by DB standards. However, it's like this dynamic goes unacknowledged and the character as a whole is treated more like a childish creature whose deluged in food and wrapped in silly putty.

So basically like Super Buu but less pure evil.

Lionel says that Beerus has potential to be more, simply that post-BoG media have been content to make him look like Super Buu. He is pointing out wasted potential, not necessarily dismissing the character entirely. And I agree; Beerus does not have to repent of his ways, but just asking "Why do you do your job on a whim?" or "Just how old are you?" is a nice opening for some accidental profundity.

I would posit that "Super Buu but less pure evil" is equivalent to the phrase "Semi-Perfect Cell"- you are trying to dial down absolute terms, when the moment you cease you be absolutes, you become something else entirely. From what we have seen, Super and Kid Buu cannot relate to people, they are the center of their own universes, and thus they can do whatever they wish. Beerus, on the other hand, is surprisingly conscientious... and just so happens to forget that on a regular basis. They are both simple, they both have overlapping tendencies, but Beerus has material to set him apart: if Toriyama and Toei decide to utilize him that way.

[CosmicSaiyan]

Beerus is definitely a great character especially the Toriyama's version.Though i was a bit disappointing with how Toei handled him, cause i was hoping that he would be more of a mentor figure for Goku rather than just his rival. I would love to see him more become involved with Goku and maybe like both training together.

[Majin Buu]

I respect the gesture of trying to experiment with a different type of villain, but in Beerus's situation it's not his status as a morally neutral adjudicator bound to the natural conventions of the universe that's the focus of his character -- more often than not it's this inane desire to be fed and waited on at the beck and call of Whis or the Saiyan trainee that is the context of whatever scene he's in. The nature of his character and status should beget a more earnest and sober interpretation yet these attributes have been treated like a loosely defined background framework instead of a point of contention past his introduction in BoG.

One question that could be brought forth which may help to add further depth to his position would be the justification and morality behind annihilating whole civilisations on a whim simply because they didn't have a perfect culinary dish for him when there are likely so many uninhabited worlds across the universe that could be easily destroyed without sacrificing innocent bystanders in the pursuit of maintaining balance between destruction and creation. The genocides he's perpetrated and the justification behind them could introduce a new dynamic by DB standards. However, it's like this dynamic goes unacknowledged and the character as a whole is treated more like a childish creature whose deluged in food and wrapped in silly putty.

You're asking for something the series doesn't do. Dragon Ball is not a deep or complex show. Beerus is portrayed as childish and silly because that's what Dragon Ball is at its core. Any moral ambiguity the character has is going to remain strictly in the subtext. Your suggestions would work in a different kind of story, but something like that would feel out of place in Dragon Ball. That's why the original Bardock Special feels like such an anomaly, the moral ambiguity is more front and center than it usually is for this franchise. Toriyama himself admitted that it was the kind of story he would never write.

[EXBadguy]

I for one agree with the OP a bit. While BoG is an original DBZ move, Beerus on the other hand isn't. Like yeah, he's different from all the Toei villains, but he ain't that much different from the series villains. I mean, now that I think about it, Beerus is like a Super Buu 2.0, cuz he'll destroy everything because of food. Hopefully in the future he'll be developed into something good, cuz I like Beerus.

[Hellspawn28]

Fat Buu mainly wanted food while Super Buu wanted to fight someone strong. Super Buu is pretty much a pink version of Cell. Both have very strong regeneration, both can absorb other characters to transform, both wanted to fight someone really powerful and both turn back to normal by removing another character from inside them.

[whitetop]

If you want to be so reductionary (is that even a word...?)

I have nothing else to add to this, but: "reductive."

Plus is is nice to see a bad guy turn good! for once.

Wait, what?

Lol sorry 46hrs of no sleep gets to you with depression mate.

"Plus its nice to see a bad guy turn good! for once" ( ! is to we never know if he will turn bad again)

Remember he was bad in F and in the first season of super but not he seems to be helping vegito and goku son?.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

Original in design. And good because as OP pointed out he has a bit of every past villains and such in him, his random mood swings are pretty entertaining, this deity having such unfathomable love for food is quite unique in the sense that he has power like Freeza and such but he simply does not care, with all the power why not rule the universe like Freeza attempted to do? All he loves his sleeping and eating, hell you even got people like Jaco thinking he is myth this is what makes him pretty unique. Hell he's even displayed laziness in destroying planets!

[Lionel]

I respect the gesture of trying to experiment with a different type of villain, but in Beerus's situation it's not his status as a morally neutral adjudicator bound to the natural conventions of the universe that's the focus of his character -- more often than not it's this inane desire to be fed and waited on at the beck and call of Whis or the Saiyan trainee that is the context of whatever scene he's in. The nature of his character and status should beget a more earnest and sober interpretation yet these attributes have been treated like a loosely defined background framework instead of a point of contention past his introduction in BoG.

One question that could be brought forth which may help to add further depth to his position would be the justification and morality behind annihilating whole civilisations on a whim simply because they didn't have a perfect culinary dish for him when there are likely so many uninhabited worlds across the universe that could be easily destroyed without sacrificing innocent bystanders in the pursuit of maintaining balance between destruction and creation. The genocides he's perpetrated and the justification behind them could introduce a new dynamic by DB standards. However, it's like this dynamic goes unacknowledged and the character as a whole is treated more like a childish creature whose deluged in food and wrapped in silly putty.

You're asking for something the series doesn't do. Dragon Ball is not a deep or complex show. Beerus is portrayed as childish and silly because that's what Dragon Ball is at its core. Any moral ambiguity the character has is going to remain strictly in the subtext. Your suggestions would work in a different kind of story, but something like that would feel out of place in Dragon Ball. That's why the original Bardock Special feels like such an anomaly, the moral ambiguity is more front and center than it usually is for this franchise. Toriyama himself admitted that it was the kind of story he would never write.

Dragon Ball has alternated so frequently across the spectrum from the inane to solemn in its ambiance and story telling that I feel it would be inappropriate to label the entirety of the series under the same category apart from its status as a shonen. What we're seeing now with Super is a retrogression to the buoyant early era where gags were more prominent in the show while packaging it as DBZ, essentially following in the Buu arc's footsteps.

I'm not advocating that Dragon Ball should tonally alter itself into becoming some kind of intense psychological thriller where your protagonist is the antagonist one-in-the-same -- at its core it's still a fighting manga dedicated to characters beating each other. However, the series did open a door of sorts when it chose to create an antagonist like Beerus rather than their perpetuate their general standards for villains. They've opened the series up to scrutiny when they chose to resurrect it two decades after the original manga ended where the standards for manga and anime storytelling have changed. If they wanted more of the same then they should have stuck to their conventions rather than experiment with anything different. Besides -- it isn't as though a previous example of challenging a character's motives doesn't exist. Freeza once called out Goku's moral authority as the "good guy" while daring to fight for the barbaric and murderous Saiyan species. It was a short-lived point which Freeza didn't bother to continue using, but the precedent does exist.

[Majin Buu]

Dragon Ball has alternated so frequently across the spectrum from the inane to solemn in its ambiance and story telling that I feel it would be inappropriate to label the entirety of the series under the same category apart from its status as a shonen. What we're seeing now with Super is a retrogression to the buoyant early era where gags were more prominent in the show while packaging it as DBZ, essentially following in the Buu arc's footsteps.

I'm not advocating that Dragon Ball should tonally alter itself into becoming some kind of intense psychological thriller where your protagonist is the antagonist one-in-the-same -- at its core it's still a fighting manga dedicated to characters beating each other. However, the series did open a door of sorts when it chose to create an antagonist like Beerus rather than their perpetuate their general standards for villains. They've opened the series up to scrutiny when they chose to resurrect it two decades after the original manga ended where the standards for manga and anime storytelling have changed. If they wanted more of the same then they should have stuck to their conventions rather than experiment with anything different.

Yes, stuff like that does occasionally rise above the level of subtext. In addition to the original Bardock Special, Fat Buu killed and destroyed not out of maliciousness so much as because he thought it was fun and didn't know any better. However, that was more of a gag twist than complex characterization; again, the kind of silly gag that fits Toriyama's style at heart. Another example is Vegeta's "I hate what I've become here but genuinely love my family at heart" dilemma in the Buu arc, but the story doesn't explore any of that on anything other than a surface level. Complex motives, moral ambiguity, and examinations of those concepts aren't Toriyama's style in general, never has been; so in the rare occasions when he does dabble in those waters, it's only on a surface level. This is why that kind of stuff is usually just in the subtext. Yes, even when the series got less joke and gag oriented, the morality generally didn't go any deeper than "the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad". Hell, even my anomaly example of the original Bardock Special doesn't really explore the moral ambiguity of the situation so much as just state that the protagonist is part of a race that routinely killed people and goes up against someone even worse.

Besides -- it isn't as though a previous example of challenging a character's motives doesn't exist. Freeza once called out Goku's moral authority as the "good guy" while daring to fight for the barbaric and murderous Saiyan species. It was a short-lived point which Freeza didn't bother to continue using, but the precedent does exist.

I don't recall Freeza ever saying anything like that in the original Japanese version. Where did this happen specifically?

[Lionel]

Dragon Ball has alternated so frequently across the spectrum from the inane to solemn in its ambiance and story telling that I feel it would be inappropriate to label the entirety of the series under the same category apart from its status as a shonen. What we're seeing now with Super is a retrogression to the buoyant early era where gags were more prominent in the show while packaging it as DBZ, essentially following in the Buu arc's footsteps.

I'm not advocating that Dragon Ball should tonally alter itself into becoming some kind of intense psychological thriller where your protagonist is the antagonist one-in-the-same -- at its core it's still a fighting manga dedicated to characters beating each other. However, the series did open a door of sorts when it chose to create an antagonist like Beerus rather than their perpetuate their general standards for villains. They've opened the series up to scrutiny when they chose to resurrect it two decades after the original manga ended where the standards for manga and anime storytelling have changed. If they wanted more of the same then they should have stuck to their conventions rather than experiment with anything different.

Yes, stuff like that does occasionally does rise above the level of subtext. In addition to the original Bardock Special, Fat Buu killed and destroyed not out of maliciousness so much as because he didn't know any better. However, that was more of a gag twist than complex characterization; again, the kind of silly gag that fits Toriyama's style at heart. Complex motives, moral ambiguity, and exploring all that isn't Toriyama's style in general, never has been; and the anime will largely be imitating that. Yes, even when the series got less joke and gag oriented, the morality generally didn't go any deeper than "the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad". Hell, even my anomaly example of the original Bardock Special doesn't really explore the moral ambiguity of the situation so much as just state that the protagonist is part of a race that routinely killed people and goes up against someone even worse.

Fat Buu seemed to lack the capacity to appreciate the consequences of his actions. He's essentially a "dumb" class of villain who can be written very simply because of what he is. He's hardly what I would call an outlier in the motivational sense because he seeks destruction and fighting for the thrill of it, very similar to the ideals of those who came before him who sum up their reasoning as "I'm perfect and evil, that's why". The only difference with him is that he was naive enough to easily accept not being told to kill so long as he wasn't provoked into doing so. Is it because of Toriyama alone that the series is in the state that it's in? Should we promote a stagnant method of storytelling because it's faithful to the original creator's vision which seems to have only worsened over the decades as he can't even recall many of the details from his own series? This sounds awfully similar to Shigeru Miyamoto's notions of gaming where the gameplay and storytelling have to be mutually exclusive from each other, yet series like Zelda have deviated quite a bit from his original vision through the introduction of cinematics and better developed villains to provide a more compelling story.

As I mentioned previously, I think if DBZ wishes to maintain the status quo then it should not be trying to create villains of any more complicated variety than what was given in the manga. The same could be said of the world building and lore as well. Dragon Ball is a simplistic and straightforward manga, yet ironically Super has done the most to build upon the DB universe's lore with the introductions of natural order gods, multiple universes, Super Dragon Balls and an all-knowing Buddha type figure in Zuno who happens to live one of the most elaborately designed structures ever seen in DB.

I don't recall Freeza ever saying anything like that in the original Japanese version. When did this happen specifically?

It takes place in chapter #318, page 9 (not counting the title page). Freeza just recovers from Goku propelling him into the earth with a clasped hands attack from above.

[Majin Buu]

Is it because of Toriyama alone that the series is in the state that it's in? Should we promote a stagnant method of storytelling because it's faithful to the original creator's vision which seems to have only worsened over the decades as he can't even recall many of the details from his own series?

The way things are at this point should come as no surprise when you take into account the entirety of the original run. If you want more complex material, you're not going to get it from Toriyama. Like it or not, this has been firmly established as the franchise's tone. Any large deviation from that would feel out of place. Just like it would feel out of place in Mario, and yes, even Zelda; as both have always been lighthearted franchises at their core (Zelda has only occasionally dabbled in deeper waters, and like Dragon Ball, only on a surface level).

As I mentioned previously, I think if DBZ wishes to maintain the status quo then it should not be trying to create villains of any more complicated variety than what was given in the manga. The same could be said of the world building and lore as well. Dragon Ball is a simplistic and straightforward manga, yet ironically Super has done the most to build upon the DB universe's lore with the introductions of natural order gods, multiple universes, Super Dragon Balls and an all-knowing Buddha type figure in Zuno who happens to live one of the most elaborately designed structures ever seen in DB. ?

I agree. All the new information we're getting about this universe is feeling more and more incongruous with what was established in the original series (which wasn't entirely consistent to begin with). I'm just not surprised by it anymore. I personally wish Dragon Ball was allowed to be over and done with so it can just exist as a completed work, but as long as Dragon Ball remains a money maker, Toei will always find some way to crank out new material that will only further complicate and contradict things.