The Main Character(s)

[rereboy]

The original, Alan Scott, was a completely different concept. There was no GL Corp. It was a magical ring. Hal was for all intents and purposes, the original.

That is the same thing as calling a reboot or a remake, original. It's not.

Here are the facts: Alan was the original character but the character wasn't doing so well so they decided, at some point, to remake the character by changing some stuff and keeping others. In short, they decided to remake him. Hal is the result.

[sintzu]

The Kid Boo fight pretty much resolves almost everyone's characters arcs.

The BOG movie (not arc) developed Goku and Vegeta further by having both of them put aside their pride to protect earth from Beerus.

[ekrolo2]

The Kid Boo fight pretty much resolves almost everyone's characters arcs.

The BOG movie (not arc) developed Goku and Vegeta further by having both of them put aside their pride to protect earth from Beerus.

Vegeta's new stuff isn't development so much as showing results of it which is: he cares about his family. Development would be more of him having to own up to his own murderous past while mentoring Cabba for a while.

Goku's arc is cool in BoG but we already had something exactly like it with Popo after he beat Daimao.

[ABED]

The original, Alan Scott, was a completely different concept. There was no GL Corp. It was a magical ring. Hal was for all intents and purposes, the original.

That is the same thing as calling a reboot or a remake, original. It's not.

Here are the facts: Alan was the original character but the character wasn't doing so well so they decided, at some point, to remake the character by changing some stuff and keeping others. In short, they decided to remake him. Hal is the result.

It's not a reboot. They used the same name, but it's a very different idea. They didn't remake him, they changed the concept from magic ring to a police force (more or less) in space. Hal is the original Green Lantern as we understand the concept of a GL now. I know the facts, but Alan Scott is not the original. Damn near every comic fan knows these facts. You aren't telling me anything new.

[rereboy]

The original, Alan Scott, was a completely different concept. There was no GL Corp. It was a magical ring. Hal was for all intents and purposes, the original.

That is the same thing as calling a reboot or a remake, original. It's not.

Here are the facts: Alan was the original character but the character wasn't doing so well so they decided, at some point, to remake the character by changing some stuff and keeping others. In short, they decided to remake him. Hal is the result.

It's not a reboot. They used the same name, but it's a very different idea. They didn't remake him, they changed the concept from magic ring to a police force (more or less) in space. Hal is the original Green Lantern as we understand the concept of a GL now. I know the facts, but Alan Scott is not the original. Damn near every comic fan knows these facts. You aren't telling me anything new.

In a reboot or in a remake they change things, that's the point. If reboots or remakes weren't considered reboots or remakes because they change stuff there would be no reboots or remakes to begin with because because they all change stuff to a lesser or a bigger degree.

[ABED]

That is the same thing as calling a reboot or a remake, original. It's not.

Here are the facts: Alan was the original character but the character wasn't doing so well so they decided, at some point, to remake the character by changing some stuff and keeping others. In short, they decided to remake him. Hal is the result.

It's not a reboot. They used the same name, but it's a very different idea. They didn't remake him, they changed the concept from magic ring to a police force (more or less) in space. Hal is the original Green Lantern as we understand the concept of a GL now. I know the facts, but Alan Scott is not the original. Damn near every comic fan knows these facts. You aren't telling me anything new.

In a reboot or in a remake they change things, that's the point. If reboots or remakes weren't considered reboots or remakes because they change stuff there would be no reboots or remakes to begin with because because they all change stuff to a lesser or a bigger degree.

But it's not changing continuities, it's completely changing everything except dude has a green ring that can make cool stuff.

You consider Scott to be the first GL, I don't, at least not as we've known the concept of GL. Let's leave it at that.

[rereboy]

But it's not changing continuities, it's completely changing everything except dude has a green ring that can make cool stuff.

Like I said, remakes can change stuff to a bigger or a lesser extent. Doesn't mean that they aren't remakes. All books, articles, info, etc, on green lantern agree that Alan was the original during the golden age and then the character was remade/rebooted/reimagined in the silver age into Hal.

[ABED]

But it's not changing continuities, it's completely changing everything except dude has a green ring that can make cool stuff.

Like I said, remakes can change stuff to a bigger or a lesser extent. Doesn't mean that they aren't remakes. All books, articles, info, etc, on green lantern agree that Alan was the original during the golden age and then the character was remade/rebooted/reimagined in the silver age into Hal.

Reboots and remakes aren't the same thing. THis is a complete reimagining, and yes, he was the original character to bear the name, but the concept is completely different, so I wouldn't consider him the original GL from the GL Corp as it's not a reboot of the concept. It's a very different concept.

Hal didn't take over Alan Scott's spot in the same way Terry took over Bruce's or Guy/John/Kyle took over from Hal. Different continuities and concepts completely.

[rereboy]

If you say so, ABED. To me, it just looks like you are bending yourself backwards just so that you don't say you prefer a different version than the original of a character. However, that's just what it looks like to me. If it really isn't so, then just disregard me.

[floofychan333]

I'm OK with Goku being the protagonist for as long as he's physically able to but I'm strongly opposed to using the Dragon Balls to make him young again just so he can keep being the hero. I honestly don't think he would want to live forever, and anyway, he's got so many potential successors (and even more to come once Goten and Trunks have kids) that I wouldn't be surprised if they made a short series where somebody else is the main character, and if that series was popular, that character could be the hero for good.

[ekrolo2]

I'm OK with Goku being the protagonist for as long as he's physically able to but I'm strongly opposed to using the Dragon Balls to make him young again just so he can keep being the hero. I honestly don't think he would want to live forever, and anyway, he's got so many potential successors (and even more to come once Goten and Trunks have kids) that I wouldn't be surprised if they made a short series where somebody else is the main character, and if that series was popular, that character could be the hero for good.

It's not a matter of him staying physically able, it's the fact his only character trait from his fight with Vegeta onwards is "I'm a selfish prick!". In the Cell arc he flirts with letting someone else do the heavy lifting but Toriyama gives up on this when he makes Gohan the second blandest DB character ever when he turns him into Ultimate.

[sintzu]

Goku's arc is cool in BoG but we already had something exactly like it with Popo after he beat Daimao.

Goku put his pride aside to accept power that wasn't his to fight Beerus due to Vegeta putting his pride aside earlier.

That wasn't something he did with Popo.

[Basaku]

I should clarify, it's okay when protagonists change, but it's never better than the original. I've never seen it.

Does it need to be better? In most cases that's never going to happen because the original main protagonists are the original ones, the ones that appeared just in the right time and place and helped in propelling their franchises into worldwide success, so there's the unique debut spark that's never gonna get replicated twice within the same franchise. Kirk/Spock/Uhura are iconic for plethora of reasons, both storytelling and socio-political. But that didn't stop Next Generation cast becoming massively popular and helping to keep the Start Trek franchise alive and well for decades.

Your Batman Beyond example is terrible since Terry isn't that interesting.

So terrible it had 3 succesful seasons. Moving on!

Hal remains my favorite Green Lantern.

Too bad he's decades removed from the original one so thanks for proving my point

The new Star Wars trilogy is successful because it's a brand. The new characters aren't interesting, much less as interesting as Han, Leia, and Luke Episode 7 was a pale imitation of the original. The old leads should still be the leads as the new generation is awful. God awful! If this is them shining, then bury the franchise because I don't give a rat's ass. They are retreading old stories and as a result, I don't give a crap. I want to see old friends in new situations, not Luke just taking off his hood at the last second or Han dying and the emotion not landing.

Not exactly sure what to respond to a post like this. That the world doesn't revolve around your personal opinions and you're not the sole oracle of quality & taste? Episode 7 made 2 billion, Rogue One 1 billion. Even awful Prequel Trilogy made cash. Yes, Star Wars is a brand. One that was able to succesfly move past its initial iconic main character(s) and utilize other characters. Now they can do whatever movie/game/comic they like and it's gonna make a bank. Wasn't always the case, the series was stuck with neverending rehash of Luke/Han/Leia stories for years after the Original Trilogy. But they took a risk and it paid off big way.

1 thing is clear. Most people around the world don't mind swapping main characters, even iconic ones. Unlike you and your obsession to stick to Goku no matter what, even to the point of ending the series as if Goku was the only reason it should exist. Sorry, that's just not how most see it. "We" enjoy main heroes but we're also all up for a major change and open to new stories in the same universe with new characters and it often turns out to provide amazing results.

As for Trek, I've never been a big fan. Name a few other examples because I would hardly call my knowlege limited.

I already named multiple examples of ditching former iconic main protagonists or reducing their screentime, in all cases their respective franchises didn't suffer a bit, on the contrary, they grew their universes and audience appeal. Box office, longetivity, number of TV seasons etc. all prove it. I don't care that you don't care or like these examples, they're facts regardless if it suits you or not.

Such as?

Hal Jordan rings a bell?

[ABED]

So terrible it had 3 succesful seasons. Moving on!

Never said the show was terrible, just a bad example as Terry is nowhere near as interesting as Bruce. The show was good, but 10 times out of 10, I would've preferred to see Bruce Wayne as Batman, and I think most people would as well.

Does it need to be better?

I would like to think so. If it's not better or at least as good, why do it?

Too bad he's decades removed from the original one so thanks for proving my point

Alan Scott's GL is a completely different concept. For one, the ring is magic, and there's no GL Corp. Hal didn't take over from Scott. So no, I didn't prove your point. You might as well consider The Ghost Busters and The Ghostbusters the same. They have little resemblance beyond the ring.

One that was able to succesfly move past its initial iconic main character(s) and utilize other characters.

Simply because of the brand name. Episode 1 proves the point that you put Star Wars on pretty much anything and it will sell. Changing main characters was in NO WAY a risk. If they can do what they want, it's not a risk. The movies aren't better for having switched out the main cast. It can be objectively shown that the new movie is a rehash of the first. I don't care if the movies make bank, I want them to be good. These weren't for a number of reasons. I do think they would've been better had they not tried to move to the next generation who pale in comparison. It's the brand that sells at this point, not the characters.

in all cases their respective franchises didn't suffer a bit, on the contrary, they grew their universes and audience appeal. Box office, longetivity, number of TV seasons etc. all prove it. I don't care that you don't care or like these examples, they're facts regardless if it suits you or not.

Yes, Star Wars did suffer. Not monetarily, but storywise, the new movies suck. Rogue One is god awful and episode 7 is a rehash. Star Wars had no problem keeping it's iconic status well after the release of Return of the Jedi. So no, you haven't given me a fact. Plenty of shows go seasons after the main characters leave, but it doesn't mean for the better. Have you seen Happy Days or The X-Files after their main characters left?

This is NOT about box office or monetary success. Plenty of brands can move past the main character and remain monetarily profitable, but what does that prove other than people will watch terrible movies and TV shows if it is a brand name they once liked. The argument has always been about whether it was better for the story.

If you say so, ABED. To me, it just looks like you are bending yourself backwards just so that you don't say you prefer a different version than the original of a character. However, that's just what it looks like to me. If it really isn't so, then just disregard me.

Hal is not a different version of Alan Scott.

[Basaku]

Why did you even make this thread? Clearly you're not interested in discussion but rather want confirmation bias and your subjective opinions on number of different shows/characters/series to be taken as facts. "This sucks, that sucks and despite massive numbers clearly a mistake was made because I deemed it so!" This is just ridiculous. Seriously, how do not understand the difference between a fact like box office numbers and a subjective opinion? No, box office/sales numbers ain't the ultimate reflection of quality either, but if multiple franchises remain highly popular and profitable for years/decades after swapping main character(s), then clearly the showrunners did not make a mistake and the audience is still interested. As much as general public taste may suck, more often then not the sales/box office/popularity will decline heavily if a serious mistake was made. As in case of your own X-Files example which didn't manage to pull off the leads transition succesfully.

You think Goku should remain DB lead forever (no matter how much he sucks as the lead nowadays) that's cool and your opinion. But do not act like it's a FACT because it's not.

[ABED]

Clearly you're not interested in discussion but rather want confirmation bias and your subjective opinions on number of different shows/characters/series to be taken as facts.

Translation: You don't want to discuss because you don't agree with me. Numbers and popularity doesn't equal quality.

No, box office/sales numbers ain't the ultimate reflection of quality either, but if multiple franchises remain highly popular and profitable for years/decades after swapping main character(s), then clearly the showrunners did not make a mistake and the audience is still interested. As much as general public taste may suck, more often then not the sales/box office/popularity will decline heavily if a serious mistake was made.

There are too many variables to point to in order to figure out why something is or remains popular. The numbers can stay high and a show can still suck regardless. As for your last statement, that's just naïve. What is a serious mistake can be as subjective as anything you stated. And a movie series where people spend 2 hours per movie is far less of an investment than spending hours reading or watching a TV show.

As in case of your own X-Files example which didn't manage to pull off the leads transition succesfully.

Because it's never as good. In every case you mentioned where the transition did okay at least artistically, it wasn't the same show. They didn't change leads mid show. Batman Beyond was the same continuity, but it's a different show. Star Trek: TNG was a different show set in the same universe. You can watch it without ever having seen TOS. What you're asking for is to change leads on the same series, mid story. The only way I don't foresee that being a problem is if like in the case of comics that a new generation of readers takes the place of the old one. For instance, when Wally took over from Barry, a whole generation grew up with him being The Flash and never having read an issue with Barry. Still, there's something to be said for constantly going back to Barry even though Jay was the first. Goku was the lead and he is the best lead for several reasons. One of which is the tone of the story matches him to a T, not Gohan, not Goten, not Vegeta, just Goku. I don't think you can build the emotional resonance in a long running story like you could by staying with the same lead.

[Basaku]

Numbers and popularity doesn't equal quality.

I said it first, nice try though.

There are too many variables to point to in order to figure out why something is or remains popular.

Succesfully pulling of a main cast transition will be one of the key factors though and everybody knows it. And multiple franchises managed it regardless how much you refuse to admit it and how much it doesn't suit your "only Goku!!!" argument. Just deal with it, Goku is non irrepleceable.

I don't think you can build the emotional resonance in a long running story like you could by staying with the same lead.

If the character continues to develop. Not the case for Goku anymore, ever since Buu saga. He's a walking meme and caricature of himself and after Buu saga, GT and ~80 spisodes of Super it's clear neither Toriyama nor Toei got any idea or interest in developing him or an idea how to do it, they're just recycling same old. So it's absolutely time to move him to the side. Heck, Vegeta is right there and still recieves SOME developement. There's is ZERO emotional resonance being provided with Goku right now.

[rereboy]

Hal is not a different version of Alan Scott.

A different version, as in another green lantern. Which he is. I wasn't talking about being the same person.

[ABED]

I said it first, nice try though.

Are you getting upset?

If the character continues to develop. Not the case for Goku anymore, ever since Buu saga.

Then either it's time to end the story or develop him more. If there's zero emotional resonance with Goku, what makes putting someone new in that spot a better decision? Gohan is a terrible idea as his personality doesn't fit the main character role of Dragon Ball.

Just deal with it, Goku is non irrepleceable.

After decades, yes he is. It's not like Star Trek where they tell one continuous story with the same cast. They tell one story just set in the same universe and then move on after a few seasons. Dragon Ball is different, it's all one story.

Succesfully pulling of a main cast transition will be one of the key factors though and everybody knows it.

No, not everyone knows it. How many franchises can you name that have creatively flourished after having the same lead for years? Star Wars doesn't count because it's not creatively flourishing. Monetarily, sure, but it's not creative. They are hitting the same beats they did 40 years ago. The story would've been infinitely better had they 1) not repeated episode 4, and 2) concentrated on the original characters and taken them into interesting new directions. Instead we got bland characters. When I saw the movie, guess what got the biggest reactions? Seeing the familiar characters.

I don't know why anyone is against ending the story. Every good story needs a good ending. Go out on a high note. From what I'm reading, Goku's flatness as a character in Super is a symptom of the show's quality, not its cause. There's zero reason to move him out of the spot he holds.

A different version, as in another green lantern. Which he is. I wasn't talking about being the same person.

Who said he was?

[rereboy]

Who said he was?

You, by saying a "different version of Alan Scott". That's not the same as a different version of green lantern.