Discussion, generally of an in-universe nature, regarding any aspect of the franchise (including movies, spin-offs, etc.) such as: techniques, character relationships, internal back-history, its universe, and more.
Saiga wrote:There's no evidence for that at all. The relevant quote from the manga has already posted - the Dodonpa (which Chaozu was properly trained to use) was only said to be superior to an improvised Kamehameha. It wasn't compared to even the basic Kamehameha.
The fact that no-one bothers to use it tells me that it isn't inherently superior.
Or it just lost out in popularity. I mean Goku didn't teach Kaio-ken or Shunkan Idou to anyone else, so does that mean those are useless techniques now?
Kaio-ken stopped being used when it was useless for Goku. But Shunkan Idou remains useful for him, so he kept using it.
Tenshinhan used the Dodonpa once and just stuck to using the Kikoho. It's apparently not even useful enough to serve as an alternative to slowly killing himself.
I'm re-watching Dragon Ball GT in full on my blog. Check it out if you're interested in my thoughts on the series as I watch through it!
Saiga wrote:There's no evidence for that at all. The relevant quote from the manga has already posted - the Dodonpa (which Chaozu was properly trained to use) was only said to be superior to an improvised Kamehameha. It wasn't compared to even the basic Kamehameha.
The fact that no-one bothers to use it tells me that it isn't inherently superior.
It's like comparing Goku's first Kamehameha to Chaozu's Dodonpa, which isn't really fair. If Goku was in Krillin's spot, he'd have won with his Kamehameha in the same time period.
Why Dragon Ball Consistency in something such as power levels matter!
Spoiler:
Doctor. wrote:I've explained before, I'll just paraphrase myself.
Power levels establish tension and drama. People who care about them (well, people who care about them in a narrative) don't care about the big numbers or the fancy explosions. If you have character A who's so much above character B, who's the main character, you're gonna be left wondering how in the hell character B, the character we're supposed to care and root for, is going to escape the situation or overcome the odds. It makes us emotionally invested.
If character B doesn't escape the situation in a believable way that's consistent with previous events, then that emotional investment is gone. It was pointless tension, pointless drama made just to suck in the viewer. It has no critical value whatsoever. The audience is left believing that the author can just create whatever scenarios he wants and what happens to the characters is decided by whatever the author wants to happen, regardless of the events that happened in the story. Which, in fairness, is what happens, but the audience wants to be fooled. The audience wants to know that the world they're following has rules. That the world they're invested in isn't going to bend to external factors that are irrelevant to them.
An author can do whatever he wants with the characters, that's not false. But the author should also have the responsibility to make sure it fits in cohesively with the other events in the narrative he has created.
