Do you the find the pushback against Goku being the hero to be odd?

[Cursed Lemon]

sherlock Holmes doesn’t change much if at all in the original stories

Circumstances.

Change in itself isn’t inherently interesting or necessarily relatable. In fact most people don’t change because it is difficult

This is a really silly hill to die on.

I would also argue that people don’t look to stories for relatability

Is that why like 98% of all stories ever written over the history of the entire human race involve a character arc and/or an Aesop?

[ABED]

sherlock Holmes doesn’t change much if at all in the original stories

Circumstances.

Change in itself isn’t inherently interesting or necessarily relatable. In fact most people don’t change because it is difficult

This is a really silly hill to die on.

I would also argue that people don’t look to stories for relatability

Is that why like 98% of all stories ever written over the history of the entire human race involve a character arc and/or an Aesop?

change is difficult and who said it was a hill i am willing to die on?

Tvtropes isn’t a good source.

What does change have to do with relatability?

[LoganForkHands73]

Since when did Doctor Who have a "strict continuity". And if he is completely different, why is he called THE Doctor?

And in superhero comics, does the status quo ultimately change that much? How long did it take for Lois and Clark to get hitched? Hint, it took until my lifetime.

"Throwing a fit"? Really?

Sure sometimes the changes do span generations, but the continuities don't. I've lost count of how many reboots DC has gone through. You miss Hal? See you next reboot Mr. Jordan.

I still stand by my statement that stories don't benefit from changing the lead after an extended run, not in the long run. If you need to change the lead to retain interest, it's time to pack it up. At that point, you're just running on fumes desperately trying to keep the money train rolling.

Doctor Who doesn't have a strict continuity but there's a causation from one episode to the next at the very least. Until recently, you'd be lucky to see a Bond movie directly reference a past instalment, especially between two separate actors' films. The Doctor isn't easily comparable to any other show because while he/she is always still "The Doctor", each regeneration is treated as if it introduced a totally new lead with a totally new personality. Hence why everyone always makes a big deal out of it, because every incarnation is for all intents a different character entirely. The latest one is a woman for christ's sake.

In short, I think it's perfectly possible for new leads to be interesting, so long as they're sufficiently unique and contrasting to the protagonists that came before. With fantasy and science fiction properties especially, people love the fictional playgrounds their narratives have provided. It's not completely unfathomable that they would like to see the settings fleshed out with more characters' perspectives. Franchises like Star Trek have pushed forward with completely new casts each generation. Ironically, their recent attempts to fall back on older protagonists like Picard and Kirk have had mixed reactions. I'm not even saying that Dragon Ball has to follow suit, primarily because it's a cartoon so naturally isn't so beholden to actors changing affecting the narrative (though lord knows who could ever replace Nozawa at this point).

[ABED]

I don't see it that way. It's not about continuity. Regardless of the continuity, a new actor is always going to bring something different to the role even if unintentionally and people get attached to actors just like the characters. A new actor taking over will always be a big deal.

In short, I think it's perfectly possible for new leads to be interesting,

I didn't say new leads are not interesting, I'm saying they are less interesting. I like a number of new leads but just not as much. I love Gohan but I just don't think his run as the lead was what was best for the series. It wasn't because he wasn't interesting, it's because he wasn't AS interesting.

[kemuri07]

I don't see it that way. It's not about continuity. Regardless of the continuity, a new actor is always going to bring something different to the role even if unintentionally and people get attached to actors just like the characters. A new actor taking over will always be a big deal.

In short, I think it's perfectly possible for new leads to be interesting,

I didn't say new leads are not interesting, I'm saying they are less interesting. I like a number of new leads but just not as much. I love Gohan but I just don't think his run as the lead was what was best for the series. It wasn't because he wasn't interesting, it's because he wasn't AS interesting.

Yeah gonna disagree with that one, man. Gohan is an interesting, and I'd argue more engaging, protagonist than Goku precisely because he's completely different in every single way than his father. Even in Dragon Ball, Goku had always been one-dimensional, which fit the more simplistic gag origins of the original comic. Gohan is far more complex, and reacts to scenarios in vastly different ways than Goku who, even in the stronger parts of DB, is basically just "I LIKE FIGHTING!!"

[ABED]

I don't see it that way. It's not about continuity. Regardless of the continuity, a new actor is always going to bring something different to the role even if unintentionally and people get attached to actors just like the characters. A new actor taking over will always be a big deal.

In short, I think it's perfectly possible for new leads to be interesting,

I didn't say new leads are not interesting, I'm saying they are less interesting. I like a number of new leads but just not as much. I love Gohan but I just don't think his run as the lead was what was best for the series. It wasn't because he wasn't interesting, it's because he wasn't AS interesting.

Yeah gonna disagree with that one, man. Gohan is an interesting, and I'd argue more engaging, protagonist than Goku precisely because he's completely different in every single way than his father. Even in Dragon Ball, Goku had always been one-dimensional, which fit the more simplistic gag origins of the original comic. Gohan is far more complex, and reacts to scenarios in vastly different ways than Goku who, even in the stronger parts of DB, is basically just "I LIKE FIGHTING!!"

Complex doesn't equal interesting. And he's not that complicated. He doesn't love fighting but will do so when he has to. Yes, he reacts differently, but that doesn't make him more interesting than Goku. He's not better, he's just different. We have plenty of protagonists who are reluctant. We don't need yet another one. In a show about fighting, a character who enjoys it feels appropriate.

Three dimensional characters aren't inherently more interesting. It all boils down to execution, and part of what makes Gohan feel less engaging than Goku is that he's too earnest for a world as quirky as DB, the shifting tone of the series over time changes nothing.

What makes Goku more interesting than Gohan is Goku knows who he is and is active in pursuit of his goals. Gohan is mostly passive with the exception of the end of the Saiyan arc and the entire Freeza arc.