Stereotyping

[AgitoZ]

You know.. would saying "No one ever stays dead." be a stereotype?

Yes it would since many believe due to the Dragon Balls no one stays dead and there's no tension,

But the Dragon Balls due have restrictions and the characters can't always use them. There is still much weight to deaths in DB.

[rereboy]

You know.. would saying "No one ever stays dead." be a stereotype?

Yes it would since many believe due to the Dragon Balls no one stays dead and there's no tension,

But the Dragon Balls due have restrictions and the characters can't always use them. There is still much weight to deaths in DB.

Actually... no.

No good guy stays dead is a truthful description. The only one who ever really died and didn`t come back was #16.

In the boo saga they even let almost every earthling die at the hands of Buu because they knew they could just wish him back. "Oh, we can just wish them back". And, true enough, they did come back.

Even Goku`s death in Cell`s saga had to be forced by Goku`s will. The gang could have just wished the Earth Dragon to go to the new planet Namek and once there they could use their Dragon Balls to make Goku come back to life and use another wish to go back to Earth (or another possible solution like Dende creating a new set of Dragon Balls from scratch capable of resurrecting Goku).
It would be simple but it would take much away from Goku`s sacrifice, so that`s why Toriyama felt the need to make Goku accept his death and tell his friends that he wanted to remain dead.

[batistabus]

There is still much weight to deaths in DB.

I disagree. Even when characters do "stay dead", they still communicate with the living world and have adventures. You don't miss them because they're dead but they're not gone.

[rereboy]

There is still much weight to deaths in DB.

I disagree. Even when characters do "stay dead", they still communicate with the living world and have adventures. You don't miss them because they're dead but they're not gone.

Ah, I forgot to mention this. Yes, this is also true. Even dead, all the characters know for a fact that their friends are doing OK in the afterlife. That actually makes death not very menacing.

[Perfect]

There is still much weight to deaths in DB.

I disagree. Even when characters do "stay dead", they still communicate with the living world and have adventures. You don't miss them because they're dead but they're not gone.

Ah, I forgot to mention this. Yes, this is also true. Even dead, all the characters know for a fact that their friends are doing OK in the afterlife. That actually makes death not very menacing.

Well it's likely that Sixteen just stopped existing all together. Bardock and many others are never heard from again.
In Trunks' time line there's no communication from the afterlife, well at least it seems that way. It's also implied Goku communicated very little, if not at all during his seven years of being dead. I guess Goku's lucky he could do that all, being that he's hanging out with a god and all. I wonder if Bardock went to Hell...

Edit:
Then again, it is stressed by Gohan, well and Trunks that death is still death. What if your best friend goes to Hell while you go to Heaven. D:

[OutlawTorn]

Well, I think the answer to that question is found the other way around. I think it's highly probably that the reason Japanese fans are so defensive about Nozawa is because of how prevalent the, "Durh, Goku sounds like a woman/gay/etc." "argument" is.

How is it any more prevalent than any of the attacks on the dub Goku's? Stuff like "He sounds like a generic superhero" or "he sounds like he's just a guy yelling in a booth" which aren't any more "arguments" than the "sounds like a woman" example. Sure, sometimes they do sound like they are yelling a booth, just like sometimes Nozawa sounds like she's choking to death. Nobody's perfect.

On that vein, the Mike Tyson/Michael Jackson "arguments" about men with high pitched voices is ineffective when they are the only examples people can keep throwing out there.

I think the simple fact should be, whether or not people like Nozawa or the Japanese version in general, they are still entitled to their opinions and can call themselves fans of Dragon Ball. It is extremely arrogant for any one person to believe they can tell anybody they aren't fans if they don't happen to conform to their expectations of what a fan "should" be.

[AgitoZ]

How were both of Kuiririn's deaths not a big impact. How about when Toriyama went all Friday the 13th on the Z-Fighters?

[batistabus]

How were both of Kuiririn's deaths not a big impact?

Because he came back at the very next oppertunity both times.

How about when Toriyama went all Friday the 13th on the Z-Fighters?

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you mean once the Saiyans arrived, then my response is the same as above.

[Perfect]

How were both of Kuiririn's deaths not a big impact?

Because he came back at the very next oppertunity both times.

How about when Toriyama went all Friday the 13th on the Z-Fighters?

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you mean once the Saiyans arrived, then my response is the same as above.

Well if you look at it like this,
Krillin's death is what triggered Goku into becoming a Super Saiyan, and there was still that chance that Piccolo wouldn't make it in. Meaning no more Dragon Balls, meaning everyone stays dead.

Initially their deaths were just deaths, but it had been set up prior that Namek would be a reasonable destination. Which Krillin later explains.

What's my point? A death doesn't have to be permanent to have an impact or any sort of significance to it. Though there are plenty of permanent deaths.

[batistabus]

Well if you look at it like this,
Krillin's death is what triggered Goku into becoming a Super Saiyan, and there was still that chance that Piccolo wouldn't make it in. Meaning no more Dragon Balls, meaning everyone stays dead.

Initially their deaths were just deaths, but it had been set up prior that Namek would be a reasonable destination. Which Krillin later explains.

What's my point? A death doesn't have to be permanent to have an impact or any sort of significance to it. Though there are plenty of permanent deaths.

Sure, the deaths cause significant events to occur. And they always pull the "if the creator of the dragon balls dies, no more wishes" card. But the deaths themselves don't make you sad because if the character is important enough, you know they're coming back one way or another. And if they are dead, they're having fun training.

Basically, the deaths trigger important events but are in no way tragic. Thus, there is little to no impact to the viewer.

[Perfect]

Well if you look at it like this,
Krillin's death is what triggered Goku into becoming a Super Saiyan, and there was still that chance that Piccolo wouldn't make it in. Meaning no more Dragon Balls, meaning everyone stays dead.

Initially their deaths were just deaths, but it had been set up prior that Namek would be a reasonable destination. Which Krillin later explains.

What's my point? A death doesn't have to be permanent to have an impact or any sort of significance to it. Though there are plenty of permanent deaths.

Sure, the deaths cause significant events to occur. And they always pull the "if the creator of the dragon balls dies, no more wishes" card. But the deaths themselves don't make you sad because if the character is important enough, you know they're coming back one way or another. And if they are dead, they're having fun training.

Basically, the deaths trigger important events but are in no way tragic. Thus, there is little to no impact to the viewer.

I don't see many people calling a villain's death tragic, but if you're a fan of the character it can be.
Examples: Cell and Freeza.
Heroes that never came back:
Just about everyone in Trunks' time, Sixteen.
I don't see why a character's death wouldn't have an impact to the viewer, just because they come back.

[rereboy]

What's my point? A death doesn't have to be permanent to have an impact or any sort of significance to it. Though there are plenty of permanent deaths.

I totally disagree.

What gives Death that much importance in the real world is the fact that its permanent and the fact that we don`t know for sure what happens after Death.
If it was almost always temporary (at least in the cases where death wasn`t caused by natural causes) and in the cases it was permanent, we knew for sure that the good people would continue to exist and be OK in the afterlife, waiting for their friends and family to join them, would Death have that much importance in the world? Would it be so scary? I do not think so.

Both these things are taken away in Dragon Ball. It almost never is permanent (its only permanent for the bad guys, #16 and characters that died off story, like the fighters in Trunks` Future, and characters that died prior to the story like Bardock. Pretty much everyone else comes back) and we know for sure that the good guys are doing OK in the afterlife, even if they don`t come back.

The only moments in Dragon Ball where Death had real meaning were in the rare occasions where it was permanent and in the moments where we still didn`t know if the characters would come back or not or the moments that we thought they wouldn`t come back (like when Piccolo was killed and the Dragon Balls were destroyed, when Krillin died a second time, when Buu destroyed Earth, when Vegeta died in the Buu saga, when Goku died in the Cell saga...). However, that only works the first time we read/watch the story. After that first time we already know that they will come back and that everything will be fine, so the significance of that death is greatly diminished.

[Perfect]

What's my point? A death doesn't have to be permanent to have an impact or any sort of significance to it. Though there are plenty of permanent deaths.

I totally disagree.

What gives Death that much importance in the real world is the fact that its permanent and the fact that we don`t know for sure what happens after Death.

Both these things are taken away in Dragon Ball. It almost never is permanent (its only permanent for the bad guys, #16 and characters that died off story, like the fighters in Trunks` Future, and characters that died prior to the story like Bardock. Pretty much everyone else comes back) and we know for sure that the good guys are doing OK in the afterlife, even if they don`t come back.

The only moments in Dragon Ball where Death had real meaning were in the rare occasions where it was permanent and in the moments where we still didn`t know if the characters would come back or not or the moments that we thought they wouldn`t come back (like when Piccolo was killed and the Dragon Balls were destroyed, when Krillin died a second time, when Buu destroyed Earth, when Vegeta died in the Buu saga, when Goku died in the Cell saga...). However, that only works the first time we read/watch the story. After that first time we already know that they will come back and that everything will be fine, so the significance of that death is greatly diminished.

How can you disagree with death not triggering things in the story, giving it (the event) significances. Considered by some religions, death isn't permanent, with all that reincarnation or going to a different realm stuff. What Dragon Ball does is set out a simplistic layout of how things work. Sure, not knowing what happens in the afterlife, or if there is one would be realism to people outside of religious faith or by some means of knowing what actually happens. The key point here is that in the series, that death is death. There isn't "what if we don't exist" when you're killed in the mortal universe. The fundamental layout doesn't work like that. To people who haven't experienced dying, or meeting someone that's come back, they generally have no idea what happens. That would be most of the people on Earth, maybe other planets around the universe. If we've already seen the story, then the significance of being in suspense is generally toned down if not all at out. Because we simply know what's going to happen. That generally speaking can be said for many elements in any story. Also speaking, Heaven and Hell aren't really in the manga.

[batistabus]

I don't see many people calling a villain's death tragic, but if you're a fan of the character it can be.
Examples: Cell and Freeza.
Heroes that never came back:
Just about everyone in Trunks' time, Sixteen.
I don't see why a character's death wouldn't have an impact to the viewer, just because they come back.

That's because it's not tragic. The story is set up so that you want the hero to win. Even if you like the villain, nobody would ever feel sympathy for them were they to die. You might be like "crap, he was cool" but even then, many of the villains came back in movies and they were all having fun watch Goku fight Buu.

Sixteen is probably the only considerably tragic death in Dragon Ball. As for everyone in Trunk's time-line, he had satisfaction in them being alive in the other time-line. Regardless, they were all fine in the afterlife.

[Perfect]

I don't see many people calling a villain's death tragic, but if you're a fan of the character it can be.
Examples: Cell and Freeza.
Heroes that never came back:
Just about everyone in Trunks' time, Sixteen.
I don't see why a character's death wouldn't have an impact to the viewer, just because they come back.

That's because it's not tragic. The story is set up so that you want the hero to win. Even if you like the villain, nobody would ever feel sympathy for them were they to die. You might be like "crap, he was cool" but even then, many of the villains came back in movies and they were all having fun watch Goku fight Buu.

Sixteen is probably the only considerably tragic death in Dragon Ball. As for everyone in Trunk's time-line, he had satisfaction in them being alive in the other time-line. Regardless, they were all fine in the afterlife.

Wait what? That's extremely biased. I never wanted the heroes to win. I know a lot of people who never wanted to the heroes to win. There are plenty of people who hate the heroes and love the villains, and could care less if the story's perspective makes them evil. In fact, being good or evil doesn't even matter most of the time. What, just because they're a "bad guy", it can't be tragic, because they're not a "good guy"? Yeah, right.

[batistabus]

Wait what? That's extremely biased. I never wanted the heroes to win. I know a lot of people who never wanted to the heroes to win. There are plenty of people who hate the heroes and love the villains, and could care less if the story's perspective makes them evil. In fact, being good or evil doesn't even matter most of the time. What, just because they're a "bad guy", it can't be tragic, because they're not a "good guy"? Yeah, right.

If somehow you find the death of Cell; a being who has consumed thousands of innocent people and threatens to destroy the earth "tragic", I don't know what to tell you. Same thing goes to Freeza; a tyrant who enslaves, destroyes, and commits genocide single-handedly. Do you find the character interesting? Sure. But their death is by no means a tragedy.

[Perfect]

Wait what? That's extremely biased. I never wanted the heroes to win. I know a lot of people who never wanted to the heroes to win. There are plenty of people who hate the heroes and love the villains, and could care less if the story's perspective makes them evil. In fact, being good or evil doesn't even matter most of the time. What, just because they're a "bad guy", it can't be tragic, because they're not a "good guy"? Yeah, right.

If somehow you find the death of Cell; a being who has consumed thousands of innocent people and threatens to destroy the earth "tragic", I don't know what to tell you. Same thing goes to Freeza; a tyrant who enslaves, destroyes, and commits genocide single-handedly. Do you find the character interesting? Sure. But their death is by no means a tragedy.

Through the first run of watching Freeza and Goku fighting on Namek, through Toonami, I was hoping Goku would die. In fact I would laugh at him if he did. But instead Freeza was made to appear to be dead. That was sad, he was a beloved character, to me at least, at the time. It shouldn't matter what they've done, as long as you hold the character higher in your eyes than oh say, the hero? It's like a murderer's mother crying over her son's death. That's probably a creepy way of putting things, but the principle is the same.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

You know what's also a stereotype? Assuming that every fan of Z's dub is just speaking from nostalgia...

Agreed. Another stereotype is that Sean Schemmel's Gokū sounds like a typical superhero, à la Superman.

[batistabus]

Through the first run of watching Freeza and Goku fighting on Namek, through Toonami, I was hoping Goku would die. In fact I would laugh at him if he did. But instead Freeza was made to appear to be dead. That was sad, he was a beloved character, to me at least, at the time. It shouldn't matter what they've done, as long as you hold the character higher in your eyes than oh say, the hero? It's like a murderer's mother crying over her son's death. That's probably a creepy way of putting things, but the principle is the same.

...and I think I'll just let you have that.

[Zephyr]

Wait what? That's extremely biased. I never wanted the heroes to win. I know a lot of people who never wanted to the heroes to win. There are plenty of people who hate the heroes and love the villains, and could care less if the story's perspective makes them evil. In fact, being good or evil doesn't even matter most of the time. What, just because they're a "bad guy", it can't be tragic, because they're not a "good guy"? Yeah, right.

cool story bro

So if Charles Manson received the death penalty as a result of all of the fucked up shit he had instigated, that would be tragic as well, correct?

I guess I can see how it may arguably be tragic if you look at it like a Shakespearean Tragedy. But that's not the case with Cell. He was designed to kill, he killed many, many people, and as a result he was justly removed from the mortal realm. No character fault that lead to his downfall.