Gaffer Tape wrote:roidrage wrote:If that's the case, then that's a fault of Toriyama as a writer; Vegeta was just staying in character in a forced role he was assigned. I see your problem, but your complaint is with the writing, not with Vegeta.
I have to assume that, with a statement like that, you take criticisms towards Vegeta very personally. Although if I am incorrect in that assumption, forgive me for saying so. But that doesn't make what I'm about to say irrelevent. A problem with Vegeta and a problem with the writing are one and the same! Vegeta is fiction. He only exists through the writing of Toriyama. Anything Vegeta does, thinks, or experiences is a consequence of the writing. But you almost make it sound as if Vegeta is an actor, and that it's not his fault that he's forced to play the role that Toriyama wrote for him. But that really doesn't apply here. Vegeta is as he was designed to be, for better or worse. Criticizing one is criticizing the other because they are the same thing. My complaint is with the writing of the character of Vegeta. Therefore, my complaint is with Vegeta.
Unlike the other villains, or Goku, you can't say Vegeta didn't change, and because he did, why bring up his past, especially since most of it ended up being retconned?
What of his past was retconned? I think it's possible that you're misusing that word. In order for it to be retconned, it would have to be stated or implied not to exist. But as far as I can tell, there's no point in the series where we're supposed to expect that he was NEVER a ruthless member of a ruthless race whose job was to annihilate the inhabitants of planets. That's always a part of his story and history.
And my point in my post is that he DOESN'T change significantly until the very end of the story. If he was introduced in the Saiya-jin arc as a character who will murder innocent people on a whim, and, in the Buu arc, he's still being portrayed as a character who will murder innocent people on a whim, there isn't a lot of change there. The only thing that has changed is his station in life.
But, if the story had gone in an entirely different direction, with Vegeta once again becoming a full-blown villain, would you still have these criticisms? I think you have more of a problem with an author trying to force an unlikable character upon you, rather than the character themselves, and that you hate Vegeta not because of what he does, but because he got so much screen time and attention and was made to look sympathetic when you didn't find him sympathetic. I theorize this because I have a very similar problem with authors taking the sides of unlikable characters and trying to make them likable.
To your second point, Vegeta does change; he begins to care for his family (and when this care lapses, he regrets it) and he even develops concern for his allies. But he could care less about anybody who's not personally connected to him, and that's something I can sympathize with, and you can't. While I'm not about to go on a mass murder spree, I find it very difficult to care about strangers who I do not love and/or am not acquainted with, and I don't think I should have to. I defend that aspect of Vegeta's character, because I can sort of understand the base of that mentality, if not the extent to which he takes it.
Summing up, I think you hate Vegeta more because he's overexposed. I don't really care about him killing innocents, partially because they're portrayed as faceless idiots who were brought back to life anyway, and partially because I myself am not really concerned about anyone outside my "circle", whereas you are, and that's just where we differ as people. As for Vegeta's family, he lets them down no question, but he
admits it, (which is a huge step), and does what he can to atone for it.
