Has TFS damaged the reputation of the franchise in the U.S.?

[rereboy]

I'm not sure what you mean by scholar eye. Humor mainly functions on subverting expectations. However, after you hear a joke many times, it loses it's effect. You may still enjoy it, but it's not nearly as funny as when you first heard it. At that point, I think it's fine to dissect it and see how it works, in which case I think it's arguable that you can gain greater appreciation for it.

Scholar eye is an critical eye that actively wonders and seeks what's beneath the surface. Regarding a joke, it might be the analysis of the timing of each word, the value after you've taken in the joke in a more relaxed manner, with a consumer eye. If you do not and start off with the mindset of a scholar eye as you take the joke, conscious reflexion of the comedian mannerisms and expressions, the cultural significance of its contents, the conscious pursuit to determine the reason for its effectiveness in being humorous, etc.

All this can be very helpful if you want to appreciate the joke in a more objective manner, but all it will only increase or decrease what you consider to be its objective the joke will hardly be effective since you are putting yourself in a position that you are not meant to be as when you encounter the joke, and your over-analytical stance will ruin it.

I don't see how Abridged is significantly different. I can surely use my scholar eye to analyze its jokes and situations in a analytical view and determine a objective value to it, but that can only be actually useful if I put myself first in a position that allows me to appreciate its humor. Now, I realize that Abridged is a little different from a simple joke or a stand-up because there's actually some stuff there for the viewers to appreciate that is not necessarily on the surface and that might require some scholar eye to fully appreciate, and as such, the show would not be as ruined by a permanent scholar eye as a simple joke. However, it would still severely damage the experience to have a critical and analytical stance from the get go. Like pretty all all humor, it requires first a consumer eye, an appropriate relaxed and neutral position in order to be effective, and only then, perhaps a more scholar eye, to detect particularities that might enrich the experience or not.

It won't ruin it. I can take a step back, and by the time I'm analyzing something like a joke, I've pretty much worn it into the ground already and it is no longer making me laugh.

As a general rule, it will ruin it if you don't allow yourself to be in the correct state if mind when you encounter it. If you are too analytical of it at first, it will lose its effectiveness, and even if you take a step back afterwards, it won't be as effective because it won't be new to you.

I like that the scholarly eye argument implies I'm incapable of finding things funny because I'm too analytical despite already admitting to enjoying the simplistic frat boy farce of Nick Swardson and Power Rangers comics for six year olds. If anything, I'm an oafish, easily pleased simpleton. (EDIT: I just remembered I've called myself a Filthy Frank fan. Oh yeah, scholarly eye's really got me killed there.)

"He doesn't like Dragonball Z Abridged" is actually the source of a debate about people being too analytical to experience joy. Are you fucking joking? You actually leap to "He can't experience joy" before leaping to "Maybe he just thinks it's shitty." This is fucking incredible.

Because you know, if someone doesn't like what you like, the problem HAS to be with him.

You completely ignored the basic fact that someone can have a "consumer" eye and simply not find something funny, while another (with also a "consumer" eye) finds it funny. That's called subjectivity but my point was never about that.

My point was about the correct stance that people should have regarding something like this so that they can enjoy it. Obviously the correct stance won't guarantee that they will enjoy it, but without the proper stance its practically guaranteed that they won't really enjoy it (at the least, its effectiveness will be severely affected).

[ABED]

As a general rule, it will ruin it if you don't allow yourself to be in the correct state if mind when you encounter it. If you are too analytical of it at first, it will lose its effectiveness, and even if you take a step back afterwards, it won't be as effective because it won't be new to you.

I don't know what you're getting at especially in light of the fact that I wrote I don't analyze stuff until I've seen it first as a fan. It would be helpful if you didn't speak in the abstract and gave examples.

[rereboy]

As a general rule, it will ruin it if you don't allow yourself to be in the correct state if mind when you encounter it. If you are too analytical of it at first, it will lose its effectiveness, and even if you take a step back afterwards, it won't be as effective because it won't be new to you.

I don't know what you're getting at especially in light of the fact that I wrote I don't analyze stuff until I've seen it first as a fan. It would be helpful if you didn't speak in the abstract and gave examples.

Its not surprising that you don't get what I'm saying giving your history of missing my point or not understanding it, no matter how well explained it is. I won't give examples because that has never before helped you understand me in any way and only succeed in prolonging the discussion to irritating lengths.

There's literally nothing that hard to understand about us not being able to appreciate a comedic product because we viewed it in a unfavorable light (too analytical for example) the first time we encounter it, and it not being as effective as a comedic product later on, even if we have a proper stance towards it that time around, because it is no longer new and we have experienced it before (even if it was with a incorrect stance).

If you don't over-analyze stuff the first time you see it, good for you. I never said you did, though.

I will only add, in case it wasn't clear, that an critical or scholar eye after the first time experience can go either way. It can either make us give it more value or it can make us decrease its value. It all depends on what we think of it with that stance. There are numerous comedic products that decrease very much in value after the scrutiny of that eye and can even be "ruined" for the fan/viewer, and since those products were obviously not meant to be actually be viewed in that fashion, one must wonder if its worth it to focus on that stance regarding most comedy, or if a more casual approach, even in re-watches, isn't the best stance for it.

[ABED]

I know in your mind you think it's well explained, but there's nothing concrete about it. My question was made in good faith. I wasn't badgering you.

All of this feels rather absurd since not all people are the same. We experience things differently, and some are able to take a step back and just enjoy things as a fan even after analyzing it.

There's literally nothing that hard to understand about us not being able to appreciate a comedic product because we viewed it in a unfavorable light (too analytical for example) the first time we encounter it, and it not being as effective as a comedic product later on, even if we have a proper stance towards it that time around, because it is no longer new and we have experienced it before (even if it was with a incorrect stance).

No, what is hard to understand is why anyone would be watching with the intention of being analytical to begin with. Are you saying they watch a comedy with the intention of picking it apart as it is happening thus interfering with their enjoyment just like if they went into a movie with the intention of hating on it would hurt their ability to enjoy the flick?

[MCDaveG]

I must say, that it was one of the more clever things done on the internet. I enjoyed the first episodes a lot, tough it's too long for me now.
You know, I can't be in a nerd mode all the time. TFS is actually clever fun and they aren't afraid to went overboard, which I admire, because I hate ''dry'' people with all the ''I enjoy only a mature sense of humour and read classic literature when on a closet''. Man, I'm reading a lot, also I'm a hufe fan of astrophysics, having lot of books from scientists like Hawking, Kaku or Mlodinow. But when it goes to fun, I say: ''Don't hold the horses bitch!''
Fun is a limitless sport in itself.

You wanna know what damaged DBZ in US? That hardcore image and rock music, trying to remake the series into serious fighting show which left a hoard of fans who enjoy quite different show than I did as a kid.

[ImmaDeker]

I still find it hilarious that being able to simply point out why I don't find one thing funny means that I have the eye of an old, essay writing codger and thus cannot experience the simple pleasures of comedy, even though rereboy's argument requires us to believe comedy cannot be enjoyed at any deeper level and exists only as immediate, throwaway fluff (or the fact he's ignoring the immediate, throwaway fluff I DO like and thus also nullifying his argument) and that to have any actual higher standards or stylistic preferences that prevent you from enjoying ONE SPECIFIC PRODUCT means that you live a very dull, grey, bland existence that maybe would be slightly better, and more fulfilling as a lifestyle choice, if you just laughed at Cell shrieking really loudly while Piccolo and Nail banter the same joke you already heard them do forty seven times and you know, they say that forty eighth time is the charm.

(that's a big thing with TFS gags, though: they seem like great ideas when they first happen, but the more the series piles on these one note high concept gags as running gags, the more it seems like they didn't have the durability intended and they just....get old.)

I know I'm gonna get infracted for this, but do you genuinely understand how much of a fucking idiot you sound like? Like, you see someone able to articulate why he doesn't like one specific thing and your immediate place is to jump to the fact that the all knowing, maligned scholarly eye that allows everyone's inner academic to dust off his books and RUIN COMEDY FOR HIMSELF.

Implying comedy can't be smart.

Implying entire forms of entertainment (stand up comedy and fan footage parodies) are essentially the same even though one is an orator making a structured speech and the other is a performance with several distinct characters and performers strung to a narrative meant to rely exclusively on the twisting or presentation of iconography

Implying that other people just RUIN THINGS FOR THEMSELVES because, well if they don't like Dragonball Z Abridged and if they're able to articulate why, they're missing out on an entire cavalcade of life joys and pleasures and maybe if we stopped being "scholarly" (also? the fact that you think THIS incredibly basic level of analysis could even be casually called "scholarly" is embarrassing and hilarious)...I'm essentially repeating myself over and over again, but do you see how fucking stupid this massive leap of logic is? If someone doesn't like DBZA, this somehow spurns a debate about how an entire corner of the population actively denies themselves hilarity because they don't find the same things funny that you do.

It's funny. I'll debate until I'm blue in the face about why I think DBZA is crap, why I don't find the jokes funny (which, y'know, is introspection, hindsight and wondering why I didn't find them viscerally funny on a first go), or why I think that style of comedy actually kind of hurts comedy as a general style and series of stylistic writing trends, but at the end of the day...I don't really use its reception to make sweeping generalizations about the people who like it. I have no ill will toward the creators of TSF, and everything about KaiserNeko has suggested he's an incredibly intelligent person. I never deny its right to be made and be loved and, at the end of the day, I WANT it to be made, because that's the desires of its creative team and the audience they've cultivated. I don't even really care what it does to the "fandom" because, hell, I actually think TFS is way better than the actual Z portion of the series (being more of a DB and GT man myself, but hey, whattaya gonna do?) so whatever. As much as I dislike it, I have yet to actually argue in favor of it not existing nor have I really made any ill claims about the people behind it (well, besides "word murderer", but I mean, it's not like they're not the only ones and I'm allowed to be WRONG if people so want to argue) or the people who like it. I'm not going around saying the people who enjoy it must be slack jawed simpletons JUST for liking TFS.

(The closest I got to that was the dangling keys comment, but that was less about liking TFS and more about what I thought wasn't really a valid or well constructed example to support a specific argument...about the writing of YGO:TAS, anyway. But LIKING TFS or TAS was not the source of that comment, before someone brings it up.)

But you go to the people actively arguing simplicity like Gyt Kaliba and rereboy and suddenly there's this uber defensive "us versus them" mentality. "I get some people analyze things a lot, but I don't know why anyone would ever do that even while I indirectly admit that some things are designed for that purpose and those people BUT EVEN THEN" or "No no, see, people don't like Dragonball Z Abridged because they're SCHOLARS. They look at things TOO DEEP." It's not just about not liking a parody on the internet. It's about intrinsic problems with the other person with these two. Either they're pretentious, hate filled assholes or they're looking at things like an old librarian who can't enjoy the fart noise made by Billy Fourth Grade. They're so insecure in their own simple tastes (I love things like Jackass. There's nothing wrong with simple taste.) that the idea someone else can be even a basic level of articulate about not liking a thing they like means that, immediately, this person must have some problem.

Hell, arguing that DBZA isn't good has actually prompted rereboy to point out having basic standards and being able to articulate the most basic of observations, because none of the shit I've said is complicated which makes calling it scholarly a joke in of itself, means there're people incapable of enjoying ALMOST ALL OF COMEDY. And that there're people who are better at going through life because they're able to sit down and enjoy anything in front of their face even though he knows nothing about the lives of the people he's debating with and making an insane amount of indirect, implicit assumptions about people in his argument. Not liking DBZA and being able to point out why means that you have some aspect of yourself that you have to actively push back to let joy come into your life. It is all YOUR fault and your personal problem, to people like Kaliba and rereboy.

Because it can't be that DBZA just sucks.

No.

The ones who don't like it have a problem. And we need to go so far to argue that that problem doesn't allow you to enjoy comedy.

That's quantifiably wrong in this thread, because rereboy has made me laugh harder than TFS ever has, so clearly I enjoy stupid comedy.

[VegettoEX]

I know I'm gonna get infracted for this, but do you genuinely understand how much of a fucking idiot you sound like?

Yes. You have been issued an account strike. These add up to temporary/permanent bans, which remove access to the entirety of the Kanzenshuu website. Please take a step back and reevaluate what it is you wish to accomplish by being a member of this community, and what value you find in the larger website as a whole.

You have great things to say. Please find better ways to say them.

[ABED]

I must say, that it was one of the more clever things done on the internet. I enjoyed the first episodes a lot, tough it's too long for me now.
You know, I can't be in a nerd mode all the time. TFS is actually clever fun and they aren't afraid to went overboard, which I admire, because I hate ''dry'' people with all the ''I enjoy only a mature sense of humour and read classic literature when on a closet''. Man, I'm reading a lot, also I'm a hufe fan of astrophysics, having lot of books from scientists like Hawking, Kaku or Mlodinow. But when it goes to fun, I say: ''Don't hold the horses bitch!''
Fun is a limitless sport in itself.

You wanna know what damaged DBZ in US? That hardcore image and rock music, trying to remake the series into serious fighting show which left a hoard of fans who enjoy quite different show than I did as a kid.

I get where you're coming from, but it's very possible to enjoy many types of humor including anything from broad to dry humor. It's one of the things that I love about Arrested Development. On one hand you'll get Buster screaming "I'm a monster!" and then there's Michael telling the doctor that his dad doesn't want glucose because the family is cutting sugar from their diet in such a matter of fact way.

[Dbzfan94]

I don't necessarily think it has. I think a lot of the jokes can be hit and miss. Some are great (a lot of stuff Vegeta or Goku says) some are just in shitty taste (Yamcha hanging himself with Puar as a rope).

That being said, i really don't like seeing it on every single video. Seriously go on any video on YouTube, covering from Raditz to right after Piccolo vs Cell the first time, you'll see at least 1 comment mimicking the lines. It just gets really old.

And also the whole Krillin/Yamcha jokes that the fandom makes are even more annoying now when everywhere you see "lol krillin is useless" etc

[BlazingFiddlesticks]

Kaiser, even factoring out the store, the language you've used in recent podcasts (Something to the tune of "Expanding our Lineup", not the exact phrase) and even the new site banner do suggest a broader enterprise, just not necessarily an immensely profitable one. The split comes from the fact that once DBZA and Hellsing started generating any kind of revenue, you didn't immediately focus the entire point of those projects to that end, and I would agree that's where "branding" would at first seem too strong a word. Less "Let's make memes to sell shirts!" as "So you really thought it was that funny... would wear a shirt with it?"; and I don't think anyone is saying there is anything remotely sinister in that, there isn't.

One thing to point out about how thoughtfulness and enjoyment do not cancel each other out is to consider where we're posting this; in Vegetto's own words via a recent podcast episode, "Kazenshuu: We know too much about Dragon Ball". Forget the Japanese voice cast, the level of cheap work, human error, and detail Toriyama's entirely loose and humorous philosophy towards the series that one learns on this site would drive some manner of fans or positively-associating people away from Dragon Ball. Yet we- most us who have probably used and referenced the site for the aforesaid wonderful and illuminating minutia- are still here.

We know the series for what it is, and last I checked most of us engage it from the extremes of both angles, looking at facts or characters or events with greater scrutiny than Toriyama ever dreamed, while perhaps in our very next post commenting humorous fan works or picking apart why something in the series just does not work. Heaven forbid someone honest-to-God believes Roshi a legitimately unnerving character, that fire's never going out! Or exemplified, its the place where Rocketman can make so many one-liners at the expense of the series, Forum users, or both that every fourth signature on the site features one (Observation, not attack!), followed by a stark point-by-point argument that the Goku and Crew versus Vegeta is the best battle in the series that I have never seen anyone anywhere top on the topic. If you have been on this site long enough, there is a very good chance Dragon Ball is at least once sphere where you have done both, and not ruined the series for yourself.

But no this thread is sincerely hilarious and I never want it to end. Am I still a pretentious scholar if my favorite Dragonball show is GT? Can we talk about why I love GT?

I know I'm all for this.

[MCDaveG]

I must say, that it was one of the more clever things done on the internet. I enjoyed the first episodes a lot, tough it's too long for me now.
You know, I can't be in a nerd mode all the time. TFS is actually clever fun and they aren't afraid to went overboard, which I admire, because I hate ''dry'' people with all the ''I enjoy only a mature sense of humour and read classic literature when on a closet''. Man, I'm reading a lot, also I'm a hufe fan of astrophysics, having lot of books from scientists like Hawking, Kaku or Mlodinow. But when it goes to fun, I say: ''Don't hold the horses bitch!''
Fun is a limitless sport in itself.

You wanna know what damaged DBZ in US? That hardcore image and rock music, trying to remake the series into serious fighting show which left a hoard of fans who enjoy quite different show than I did as a kid.

I get where you're coming from, but it's very possible to enjoy many types of humor including anything from broad to dry humor. It's one of the things that I love about Arrested Development. On one hand you'll get Buster screaming "I'm a monster!" and then there's Michael telling the doctor that his dad doesn't want glucose because the family is cutting sugar from their diet in such a matter of fact way.

I'm a huge fan of that series! I also like things like Monthy Python, Mighty Boosh. On the other side, I am also laughing hard watching Rick and Morty.
But it's simmilar for me with TFS, there is not much clever humour like nerdy humour. If I didn't knew western pop culture, I wouldn't find it funny. As well as lot of other things.
Btw. I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my previous post. Usually what I'm using when describing some cliché person sitting on toilet and reading Anna Karenina, it's a metaphor.
All simmilarities with people, dead or alive, are just coincidental.

[JackyBoi99]

I must say, that it was one of the more clever things done on the internet. I enjoyed the first episodes a lot, tough it's too long for me now.
You know, I can't be in a nerd mode all the time. TFS is actually clever fun and they aren't afraid to went overboard, which I admire, because I hate ''dry'' people with all the ''I enjoy only a mature sense of humour and read classic literature when on a closet''. Man, I'm reading a lot, also I'm a hufe fan of astrophysics, having lot of books from scientists like Hawking, Kaku or Mlodinow. But when it goes to fun, I say: ''Don't hold the horses bitch!''
Fun is a limitless sport in itself.

You wanna know what damaged DBZ in US? That hardcore image and rock music, trying to remake the series into serious fighting show which left a hoard of fans who enjoy quite different show than I did as a kid.

Exactly, TFS hasn't ruined the dragon ball z image at all. The overblown emphasis on action and violence is what is deterring people from the franchise. TFS doesn't always hit the mark in their episodes, but overall the quality of work they put out is great .

[ABED]

I must say, that it was one of the more clever things done on the internet. I enjoyed the first episodes a lot, tough it's too long for me now.
You know, I can't be in a nerd mode all the time. TFS is actually clever fun and they aren't afraid to went overboard, which I admire, because I hate ''dry'' people with all the ''I enjoy only a mature sense of humour and read classic literature when on a closet''. Man, I'm reading a lot, also I'm a hufe fan of astrophysics, having lot of books from scientists like Hawking, Kaku or Mlodinow. But when it goes to fun, I say: ''Don't hold the horses bitch!''
Fun is a limitless sport in itself.

You wanna know what damaged DBZ in US? That hardcore image and rock music, trying to remake the series into serious fighting show which left a hoard of fans who enjoy quite different show than I did as a kid.

Exactly, TFS hasn't ruined the dragon ball z image at all. The overblown emphasis on action and violence is what is deterring people from the franchise. TFS doesn't always hit the mark in their episodes, but overall the quality of work they put out is great .

The action is probably the thing that lured us into watching it in the first place.

[JackyBoi99]

Yes the action did lure us in, but the characters and story is what got us hooked. If you just emphasise the action, then the show will come off as mindless and that's not what dragon ball franchise is.

[ABED]

Characters, sure, I'm not sure about the story. The story is VERY simple. Characters and action are what kept the fans. I don't think even the overblown emphasis on action is what deters people from the show.

[JackyBoi99]

I was being a tad generous, I meant more of how the story of the show unfolds, even if it is simple and following the series as it progresses.

I think there is a middle ground between the overblown emphasis on action and whatever else contributes to the damage of the franchises image. In my opinion TFS hasn't damaged the image of dragon ball, but have given a new outlook on the series. You can interpret that as you wish.

[rereboy]

I know in your mind you think it's well explained, but there's nothing concrete about it. My question was made in good faith. I wasn't badgering you.

All of this feels rather absurd since not all people are the same. We experience things differently, and some are able to take a step back and just enjoy things as a fan even after analyzing it.

There's literally nothing that hard to understand about us not being able to appreciate a comedic product because we viewed it in a unfavorable light (too analytical for example) the first time we encounter it, and it not being as effective as a comedic product later on, even if we have a proper stance towards it that time around, because it is no longer new and we have experienced it before (even if it was with a incorrect stance).

No, what is hard to understand is why anyone would be watching with the intention of being analytical to begin with. Are you saying they watch a comedy with the intention of picking it apart as it is happening thus interfering with their enjoyment just like if they went into a movie with the intention of hating on it would hurt their ability to enjoy the flick?

You say that people are different, act differently and experience things differently (which I agree) and then you immediately act like its impossible for someone to be overly analytical or critical when seeing a show for the first time. Yeah, whatever you say...

I still find it hilarious that being able to simply point out why I don't find one thing funny means that I have the eye of an old, essay writing codger

You completely ignored my last post where I say to you "You completely ignored the basic fact that someone can have a "consumer" eye and simply not find something funny, while another (with also a "consumer" eye) finds it funny. That's called subjectivity but my point was never about that. ".

Obviously, if you are going to ignore something obvious as that and then ignore the posts that point it out to you, then its not worth even reading your posts.

[ABED]

you immediately act like its impossible for someone to be overly analytical or critical when seeing a show for the first time. Yeah, whatever you say...

No I didn't. It's possible, just not been my experience that people watch something with the intention of analyzing it the first round, nor do I think it's the right thing to do when you are watching or listening to something. I'm sure it happens, I never claimed it didn't.

[ImmaDeker]

You completely ignored my last post where I say to you "You completely ignored the basic fact that someone can have a "consumer" eye and simply not find something funny, while another (with also a "consumer" eye) finds it funny. That's called subjectivity but my point was never about that. ".

Obviously, if you are going to ignore something obvious as that and then ignore the posts that point it out to you, then its not worth even reading your posts.

Your argument is needlessly nitpicky and says people don't like the things you like because they aren't looking at it right because SCHOLAR EEEEYE and apparently there are two types of CONSUMER EEEEYE (why are these divisions even necessary)?

You invalidate the very notion of the subjectivity you're arguing by needless categorical divisions that exist entirely to say "No, you only dislike what I like because you are looking at it incorrectly." If things were subjective, why would either of us be looking at the product wrong?

It's just a drawn out way of saying "people who don't like what I like must have a problem that prevents them from enjoying it", rather than just admitting maybe some people don't like the same thing you do and just because they can say why doesn't mean they have some mental handicap that prevents them from the sacred joy you have.

Everything's subjective until someone enjoys things in a different way than you do. Then suddenly they're wrong.

[ABED]

Everything's subjective until someone enjoys things in a different way than you do. Then suddenly they're wrong.

I'll admit to that flaw many times, but not all the time. There are times when I think "I know, taste is supposed to be subjective, but how can you not see how bad/good this is?"