Do you want Dragon Ball to continue indefinitely?

[ABED]

Agreed. I don't really care why something is made as much as I care about if I like it.

[JulieYBM]

All of this shit exists just for the sake of making some money. Always will. When Toriyama's gone this shit will still be sponsored for the money. I don't see any of that really matters to one's enjoyment, though. God knows the Pocket Monster cartoons have only continued because of the money. That hasn't stopped them from having some really good story arcs and episodes, though. Guys like Tomioka Atsuhiro, Asada Yuuji, Iwane Masa'aki and Tamagawa Akihiro have poured their souls into making that franchise good. Guys like them are what attract us to a franchise and they will be what keeps us there, even after the original creator is done or gone.

[FoolsGil]

Yikes JulieYBM, go outside and get some air, maybe some positivity while you're at it.

As for me, yes. Because no matter what the ulterior motives are, one minute of Dragonball doing everything right, is worth watching. Even if the remaining 28 minutes are bad. Plus, TFS will keep going strong.

[JulieYBM]

Yikes JulieYBM, go outside and get some air, maybe some positivity while you're at it.

This is the weirdest thing I've ever read in response to "So what if the thing exists for profit, the people working on it are what we really enjoy this commercial product for."

[Cipher]

"Cash grab" is a massive oversimplification when talking about the origin of any part of this series. The whole series began because of an editorial request Toriyama got during his JUMP days, and we know it continued past points he may have liked to have ended it because of its enormous propensity to make money for both himself and Shueisha. GT was a complete corporate mandate, a product designed from the ground up as a project with a certain audience in mind; like any major TV production, but especially a children's cartoon with merchandise to sell, it's in danger of falling too obviously prey to attempts to move a bottom line affected by products outside the series itself.

But what people are likely getting at is how much a driven narrative shines through any portion of the material--how much that interplay between moving products and telling a personally satisfying/amusing story comes in. Basically, the feeling of--and this is, I think, a palpable part of any piece of art, but especially commercial narrative--the feeling of someone giving a shit, of being willing to push things in ways that feel personally satisfying to a story-teller independent from, or even at the expense of, clear commercial interests. This, again, is part of the miracle of GT, however shoddily executed it may be in some ways--when it sheds an aesthetic the series it's a corporately mandated sequel to has cultivated for ten years, we may not like it, but that's interesting. When it goes out of its way to introduce new characters, age some into frumpy retired states, and play with real-world consequences the series would never have grappled with before, we applaud this because we see someone behind the scenes wanting to push something satisfying rather than easy and safe. When Toriyama tells his editors, "Fuck it; I need to have Goku become an adult," we applaud that as well, and all of the other wild things he was able to do throughout the series' run.

Where does Super come into this? We can applaud the universe expansion--all of that's great as always--but there's a sense of playing it safer with character beats than previously. We're stuck in a ten-year in-series time skip. When we see things like Goten and Trunks not being aged up because -- what? There are no new designs and they're more marketable as children (or at least it invites that reading)? -- it starts to feel kind of bad, or at least removed from the aggressive levels of shit-giving that defined the series, sometimes in miraculous, uncalled for ways, for much of its original run.

None of this is to say I hate Super or the new material.

[Kunzait_83]

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but does anyone have this much animosity for sole proprietorships or partnerships as they do for corporations? And who cares if it's a cash grab? The Cell and Buu arcs were continued because Toriyama's editors wanted him to continue, but a number of you that hate the corporate cash grabs think that had the perfect ending. I don't. I think GT's ending was a far more satisfying conclusion. Hell, the dance episode was a better ending. It's possible and even likely that you don't like the creative decisions has nothing to do with people being driven just to make money, but rather it being badly written.

If something comes out awesome IN SPITE OF being a cheap cash grab (which has certainly happened obviously) then that's fantastic. But I highlight "in spite of" because it VERY often is the case that when something corporate-mandated has some shred of actual value to it, its going against a LOT more inherent weight driving against it than would something that's just being made without moneyed interests breathing heavily down its neck.

And very often times, something corporate mandated can turn out "fine" if totally unremarkable. Serviceable. Gets the job done. Which, for my money, still makes it inherently lesser than something that comes out a failure, but was at least an honest one coming from a real place. Creative intent ABSOLUTELY matters in most cases. I'd rather something shot for the stars and failed spectacularly on its own unique terms than something shoot for tired and well worn mediocrity and succeed well enough at it. Interesting and unique failures will ALWAYS be better and contain more inherent value than middle of the road successes.

I don't expect most people in this particular community to agree with that sentiment (not when really, really pushed deeply about it at least), but I'll stand by and argue tooth and nail for it whenever the topic arises all the same because it's a dichotomy within media as a whole that certainly, absolutely matters a great deal and has directly affected not only what gets made, but how people view and perceive what gets made.

Insofar as Dragon Ball specifically goes, I'm not arguing for GT being some font of independent creative spirit: hardly. It'll always be a footnote in the shadow of its original forebearer, and much deservedly so. I give it (a very, very small amount of in the grand scheme of things) credit for its smaller successes which come IN SPITE OF (there's that phrase again) the numerous issues holding it down, which largely stem from its unavoidable creative genesis as "soulless corporate product made by committee". Art can still certainly survive and thrive within that kind of environment, however stifled and snuffed it might be, and that's always to be commended no matter what whenever it happens. Super gets more flak from me for its successes being even lesser and smaller than GT's and for being that much more inherently nakedly blatant about its status as "tool to vacuum money from other people's nostalgia and goodwill towards a recognizable property".

And with Cell and Boo, those definitely came from Toriyama being pressured by moneyed interests to continue working on Dragon Ball, and that factor DOES certainly drag them down to "lesser" status from earlier arcs. You can feel it in how the stories are told that the author is tired and is just trying to get this over with so he can finally move onto something else, and that creative intent does (to whatever degree) have a sourness that hangs over the end products. Particularly with Boo, which in the manga especially has a very rushed and confused energy to it (that the anime manages to mitigate somewhat to a degree).

HOWEVER, Toriyama was still, remarkably enough, given an INSANE amount of creative leeway in making the manga itself (a particularly heavy-handed editor on parts of the Cell stuff notwithstanding), and this also still shows in the finished result, which while the final two arcs definitely have Toriyama's exhaustion with the material plainly showing, said-exhaustion is also used by him to fuel his creativity a bit further.

His boredom lead him to say "fuck it" and throw caution to the wind for much of it and allowed him to play even faster and looser with the material than he already was (without somehow totally and completely breaking the framework, which is itself something of a small miracle) and from this you get memorably, joyfully whacked-out stuff like character Fusions, mutant insect martial arts masters, and a magical bubblegum demon made to kill deities. And he was, amazingly enough, allowed to get away with it and run with most of those ideas. Its a classic "lemonade out of lemons" sort of situation.

In spite of how I'm framing this through Toriyama's boredom, it really does still come back to what Cipher said earlier (far more succinctly than I have) about someone (in this case, Toriyama), throughout and despite all the corporate pressure, actually giving a shit. If Toriyama were bored to the point of completely not giving a fuck at all, Cell and Boo would reek of a creator on total and complete auto-pilot. Instead, Toriyama used the boredom and shitty situation to fuel his imagination to go to even flightier, weirder places than ever. That's giving a shit, in this case about making your corporately mandated product actually interesting and unique. This is how art still gets made even despite outside moneyed interests getting involved. This is how (or one way how) creativity can still triumph over commerce.

This is one of those rarer instances of a genuinely creative talent rising above the glare of corporate interests to still do something genuinely fun and interesting regardless. But fun and interesting as they are, its also hard to argue that the series still went on a few arcs farther than it probably ought to have, and was never firing on as many cylinders as it was roughly from Tenshinhan through Freeza. I'm glad that it managed to stick the landing at the time in spite of that and to give birth to as many unique and memorable characters and concepts as it did; but it was a pretty wobbly landing all the same, and it might've come across a bit more organic and elegant if it was allowed to just draw itself to a close a bit sooner.

I give all the credit mainly over to Toriyama's artistic skill and bonkers imagination than I do the money men at Toei and Shueisha who wanted to just keep the cash cow going, come hell or high water (though I give them just enough credit for keeping Toriyama's creative leash as loose as they did back then).

As to this part of the above post:

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but does anyone have this much animosity for sole proprietorships or partnerships as they do for corporations?

Not to tiresomely drag Star Wars back into this (because god knows its by this point a tiresome fucking subject), but just ask that same question to George Lucas, who is now by this point a walking, talking, human cautionary tale (though I shudder to think what horribly wrong-headed lessons some future generations of aspiring filmmakers will take away from his sad trajectory).

That being said though, for as godawful rancid as the SW prequels are (they're cringe-inducing to sit through and they did untold amounts of harm to Star Wars' long term legacy, harm that I've very little doubt that an entity as ghastly and grotesque as Disney will exacerbate rather than mitigate in the long run), in a twisted way and on general principal alone I give them more credit than I do whatever may come out of the House of Mouse.

Not that its utterly IMPOSSIBLE for something that is somewhat artistically worthwhile to maybe come out of that black hole (we're supposedly going to be getting one of these movies a year, every single year, for the rest of our, and our children, and our children's children's dying days, according to Disney: pure, raw law of averages alone dictates that SOMETHING vital has to come of this much pure, focused amounts of media being hammered out as diligently as Woody Allen's collective filmography), but like I said, if/when it does, it'll very likely be IN SPITE of the corporate hands forcing it through the pipeline, not because of.

On his end of it, nobody forced or twisted George Lucas' arm to make the prequels, he had full and sole ownership of the entire franchise and could just sit on it and collect monumental royalty checks from it till his dying days (which he probably should have in hindsight). The decision to make more SW films was entirely his own, and for whatever naked (and unfortunate) ego was involved in their creation, they are ANYTHING but "by the numbers" or "by committee" (which isn't at all the same thing as a group effort or teamwork among mutual friends and creative minds, which is the key factor that George Lucas neglected and needed).

They're catastrophic failures, but their failures are 100% the product of a singular creative mind (and one that was unquestionably, at one time, genius-level), and they'll most likely have FAR more inherent value down the road as cautionary tales about stubborn egotism and filmmaking 101 about what NOT to do when taking chances and risks (and for whatever bad can be easily and justifiably said about them, much of the prequels' main creative directions were HUGE risks), than whatever banal, plastic, safe, tired, overly-familiar, and functional product will be manufactured by the suits at Disney. A guy I knew once astutely noted (not at all in relation to George Lucas or SW mind you) "It takes a person of already-exceptional talent to be capable of fucking up THAT badly." In other words, talent is capable of failing as big as it its best successes: mediocrity however, is the realm of the genuine hacks.

Like I said, I find there to be infinitely more value in something that tries for something unique and comes from a raw and talented voice, but fails in a spectacular fiery wreck of good intentions, than I do something that comes from a place of "just make something that takes up space on the shelf/in the queue and keeps the Brand Name alive and going" and from there shoots for "good enough" and succeeds at being just good enough and not much else. A failure of a monumental enough magnitude can still yield any number of interesting insights, both into the mind of the creator as well as into the process of creating something. A generic, safe, middle of the road, "gets the job done" sort of product leaves absolutely NO lasting mark of any sort, either on a person individually, or on culture as a whole (*ahem*, usually that is).

Good or bad is one thing: blandness, homogenization, and conformity however are things that NOBODY should be arguing in favor for. Things which are, most typically on average, the end results people have come to expect from corporatized "art" because they're exactly what usually and most often results from corporatized "art". Hence the (much deserved and easily justified) negative stigma. Again, its certainly POSSIBLE (not to mention commendable) for something that achieve real genuine artistic success in spite of corporate hands smothering it: but within that context, one ought to be cheering for the actual creative talent which succeeded at making something special against all odds, rather than cheering on the marketing suits that generally tend to do whatever they can do to make most of what passes through them as inoffensive and generic and they can so as to make it a "safer" bet for financial success.

And historically speaking, its often the riskiest ideas, the ones most frowned upon by corporate thinking, which beget the best and most lasting results. Again (UGH, so fucking sorry for dragging it in here again) Star Wars is a prime example: anyone familiar with the history of the original movie (which by now ought to be every single man, woman, child, and microscopic amoeba that's alive and cognizant on this planet) knows that the concept of "A Flash Gordon-esque Spaghetti Western/Arthurian Fantasy/Japanese Chanbara/Chinese Wuxia set in space, aimed primarily at kids and nerds, and with roughly the first quarter of it taken up by two faceless robots, one of whom never actually speaks" was, within the context of the mid to late 1970s, about as poisonous and laughably un-doable to the eyes and minds of film studio executives as would be a genuine, un-ironic stab at making "Springtime for Hitler" seriously.

Looking at the cultural landscape of the majority of the 70s (which were as realism-rooted as all get out), the idea of something like Star Wars not only being a success at all, but being THE go-to model for how just about ALL major movie studios would construct their biggest blockbuster, marquee films... the very notion of that was ludicrous in the extreme, and within that context a guy like Lucas was utterly and without a doubt the underdog fighting to get his creative work made within the confines of an unhelpful and obstructive corporate system.

Lo and behold, look at what came from the idea that every marketing exec worth their salt in the 70s were certain was a guaranteed failure.

It hardly stops at Star Wars too. Halloween, Alien, Evil Dead, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Phantasm, Eraserhead, Night of the Living Dead, Reservoir Dogs (and soon after it, Pulp Fiction), Stranger than Paradise, Brazil, Sex, Lies, and Videotape, the original Mad Max, Blood Simple, and countless (literally COUNTLESS) more examples than I could conceivably list off the cuff; many of the most radically landscape and culturally affecting films and works of the last 30/40 years have generally come about, time and again, either completely apart from - or in spite of - corporate influence.

I don't think NEAR enough people think about this enough, but the fact that in these kinds of discussions often contain (from typical fans mind you, who should have absolutely ZERO stake in these sorts of works from a financial standpoint) words like "brand", "franchise", "content", "product", etc. (one famously shitty present-day Hollywood studio-hack of a director even used to consistently use the phrase "interfacing" when talking about how he communicates with his actors: ugh) is INCREDIBLY telling about the overly-corporatized world and mindset we've long been living in for quite awhile now and about how regular people and general audiences have been conditioned over the years to think of these things (and I've unconsciously slipped into relying on those kinds of words here and there myself occasionally, so I'm totally include myself within that condemnation) when they engage with media as a whole.

Film, animation, what have you aren't just art in and of themselves, they're a MULTITUDE of different diverse artistic skills coming together to make an even grander artistic statement (music, drawing, photography/composition, acting, writing, editing, etc). For general fans to come at these things so consistently from the mindset and the framework not of the actual creative talents and artists, but from within the framework of the marketing suits and moneyed advertising interests... there's something INCREDIBLY disgusting and gross and sick and hopelessly ass backwards about that.

You're the audience. More than that you're (ostensibly) nerds (i.e. more smart, engaged, and knowledgeable than the average person). You shouldn't give a flying FUCK about what the people with the purse strings sitting in boardrooms are thinking about any of this (beyond a general sense of them allowing for good material to continue getting made rather than pushing works that are just terrible wastes of space) and should be WAY more concerned with the process on a creative level. That we, as a culture in general, even still have the concept of "art vs commerce" on the table as a debatable issue in terms of "which is the more vital", in 2016, is in its own way just a completely depressing indictment of where the mainstream has headed within the last 15/20 some-odd years (at least).

I'll stop there before I get caught up on a totally different tangent.

So yes, at the risk of making an asshole-ishly direct response here, I totally think its INCREDIBLY pedantic (perfect word for it, thanks) to not be cognizant of and conscious of these factors (and moreover to not care about them at all) when thinking about, discussing, and otherwise engaging with and experiencing art and media as a whole.

[Cipher]

This isn't even about Dragon Ball at this point, but I am completely, utterly behind Kunzait's proclamation that creative intent matters.

Though I should note I am also a po-mo MFA snob who likes some of the seams to show when experiencing a work. I want to feel there's a risk-taking, personally amused or satisfied creator somewhere beyond the page or the screen. That can happen in a corporately mandated product, and it's sometimes all the more satisfying and remarkable for it.* But it's far from the norm and, as Kunzait said, it has to put in a lot of legwork to show the creator is using the material granted to him or her as a tool, rather than the other way around.

*In fact, this kind of serendipitous occurrence is one of my favorite things on the planet

[Dr. Casey]

Anecdotal: my current girlfriend is someone who's fairly/relatively new to anime (or new enough).

Whoa, I didn't know you were in a relationship. Nice to hear about that very bright spot. :) (Incidentally, I've been in an LDR with a girl in Hong Kong since June and we're planning to get the K1 Visa process kicked off during the summer.)

*cough* On-topic though, Dragon Ball mostly fell off my radar a long time ago (as do most stories after I finish them), so I'm not really in need of new material. I love the series, but I'm not particularly fixated on any single anime and so any void that's left behind dissipates quickly enough as I find new series, or old series that are new to me, to replace it. I'm not opposed to new material either, though. I might watch Super sometime whenever it finishes, depending on whether it looks appealing or not; I don't really know anything about it aside from the fact that the early story arcs are related to the movies, and that characters who almost completely left the series during the Buu saga and GT have more of a presence again, if only as background decoration. (The latter trait I have mixed feelings on, since I did like the gang becoming more fragmented over the years and a new core group replacing the old one in a sad sort of way, but oh well; if they're here, I'll take them.)

I haven't even watched all the old material, for that matter; the only Z movies I watched were the original and the first Brolly movie. I've always been interested in doing so though. They explore a lot of territory that was never possible in the main story, such as Roshi's prominent role in the second; it always seems pretty crazy to me thinking of Roshi having such an important role in Saiyan saga-era material since he was almost a complete background character by the time Z started, and exploring fresh new scenarios that sometimes run very contrary to the plotting of the series proper is a huge part of the charm of the movies for me. Ditto for the third Dragon Ball movie, where I very much like the idea of Chaozu getting a prominent role since he's such an underutilized character, and I always enjoyed the filler roles that Toei gave him, such as the InoShikaCho episode or freezing the pirates' bullets in the Piccolo Daimao arc.

[sintzu]

All of the Dragon Ball animes were cheaply made cash grabs.

Everything that's made in the entertainment industry is a cash grab but unlike Super not everything is made as cheap and fast as possible with little to no care from the people making it.

DB, Z & GT are very far from perfect but overall they're good shows from a production point of view. (animation, fight choreography & music)

Can we say that about Super ? I get that it's a cash grab but does it have to be as cheap and unprofessionally made as it is ?

[Wezenheim]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this issue. On one hand, I think that if there are interesting stories left to tell, and creative people who really want to create something special are at the helm, I wouldn't be opposed to getting more Dragon Ball. However, I also think there is and should be a limit when it comes to shoveling out content.

I agree with the idea that the new material, Super included, at times feels like a combination of genuine interest from Toriyama and the staff and a sort weird corporate obligation to make more content while playing it safe to make nostalgia dollars. I also have to give GT some credit in that regard. It took a LOT of risks. Not many of them paid off in my opinion, but it was still it's own thing.

Battle of Gods was a huge part in my transition to "hardcore" fan and I loved it. Resurrection 'F', on the other hand, I wasn't as fond of. Dragon Ball Super, while having some people aboard who I feel genuinely love the series and want to make something nice, is also a victim of abysmal scheduling that probably wanted to capitalize on the hype of a new movie. I'd also be lying if I said I liked everything about it, because I don't. The new material has had it's ups and downs, and it's a big part of the reason why I'm so torn on this idea.

The new material will probably never reach the same height in our eyes as the original series penned by Toriyama, but if we can get new life breathed into the franchise with a project on par with something like Creed, then I welcome it.

I actually wouldn't mind more material like the Jaco manga, honestly. Little self contained stories that take place in the same world with different characters. A new cast is what I'd personally like to see if they tried to do yet another series. We have multiple universes at our disposal now, the possibilities are endless if someone has the creative drive.

[Hellspawn28]

Can we say that about Super ? I get that it's a cash grab but does it have to be as cheap and unprofessionally made as it is ?

At least Super is getting better since the Champa saga has been starting. A lot of people here and outside of this site seem to be enjoying it.

[SaiyaSith]

Yes, absolutely. I view the different Dragon Ball Series similar to American super hero franchises. Spiderman and Superman can have many different spin-offs in comics, animated shows and movies. I hope the Dragon Ball multiverse lasts forever, as long as Toriyama can groom someone who's capable of handling the franchise's stories for decades to come.

[Xeztin]

Can we say that about Super ? I get that it's a cash grab but does it have to be as cheap and unprofessionally made as it is ?

At least Super is getting better since the Champa saga has been starting. A lot of people here and outside of this site seem to be enjoying it.

The people who are enjoying it are usually the ones that aren't so critical or expecting a Game of Thrones novel. I'm enjoying it for what it is and am hyped about the Champa saga. (Yes, I lived through the original airing of the DBZ Dub and still enjoy Super.)

[Gaffer Tape]

Yes, absolutely. I view the different Dragon Ball Series similar to American super hero franchises. Spiderman and Superman can have many different spin-offs in comics, animated shows and movies. I hope the Dragon Ball multiverse lasts forever, as long as Toriyama can groom someone who's capable of handling the franchise's stories for decades to come.

But Dragon Ball is inherently different from American superhero franchises. American superhero franchises are largely about maintaining the status quo, having the same adventures from month to month. Year to year. Decade to decade. I mean, sure, they'll shake things up once in a while, but then they'll mash the reset button hard every decade or so to get things back to the familiar. Dragon Ball, as simplistic as it often is, is about growth and progression. Nothing ever stays the same. The characters age. The setting changes. Popular villains die. Permanently. (Until some stupidly terrible cash-in movie 20 years later *cough*) Hardly anything is familiar if you compare, say, a five year gap in the serialization. Dragon Ball, by its very nature, is designed to end. Hell, that's why we're stuck in this 10-year-gap, because Toriyama already took the characters as far as he wanted to take them. Now, he has to go backwards to find any room to grow. And that already ends up giving it this arrested development type of feel to it.

So, no, I don't want Dragon Ball to be anything like American superhero franchises. I want it to stay as far as humanly possible away from American superhero franchises.

[ekrolo2]

Yes, absolutely. I view the different Dragon Ball Series similar to American super hero franchises. Spiderman and Superman can have many different spin-offs in comics, animated shows and movies. I hope the Dragon Ball multiverse lasts forever, as long as Toriyama can groom someone who's capable of handling the franchise's stories for decades to come.

But Dragon Ball is inherently different from American superhero franchises. American superhero franchises are largely about maintaining the status quo, having the same adventures from month to month. Year to year. Decade to decade. I mean, sure, they'll shake things up once in a while, but then they'll mash the reset button hard every decade or so to get things back to the familiar. Dragon Ball, as simplistic as it often is, is about growth and progression. Nothing ever stays the same. The characters age. The setting changes. Popular villains die. Permanently. (Until some stupidly terrible cash-in movie 20 years later *cough*) Hardly anything is familiar if you compare, say, a five year gap in the serialization. Dragon Ball, by its very nature, is designed to end. Hell, that's why we're stuck in this 10-year-gap, because Toriyama already took the characters as far as he wanted to take them. Now, he has to go backwards to find any room to grow. And that already ends up giving it this arrested development type of feel to it.

So, no, I don't want Dragon Ball to be anything like American superhero franchises. I want it to stay as far as humanly possible away from American superhero franchises.

Dragon Ball could use some American superhero quality level writing. For all the regurgitation main superhero books do just like Dragon Ball, it's impressive how those writers keep finding new angles to look at the characters through or reinterpret old ones to make them exciting and fresh again. The closest Dragon Ball EVER got to something like this is Battle of Gods, a film basically designed to take a massive piss on all the tired tropes of 90s Z movies. If all the material after it was written like that, I think the show would be kicking all sorts of ass regardless of production issues.

[ABED]

But Dragon Ball doesn't lend itself to that like American comics do, unless you were to do a reboot with a different author.

At least Super is getting better since the Champa saga has been starting.

I haven't seen Super, but it seems from what I can gather, a lot of the negativity towards it is coming from fans disliking them retelling the last two movies.

Which, for my money, still makes it inherently lesser than something that comes out a failure, but was at least an honest one coming from a real place.

Why? That makes ZERO sense to me. THis all stems from people's dislike of the profit motive. They find it dirty, and I ask "Why?" Also, I think you're wrong that they have more inherent value. Value is subjective, not intrinsic. I'd much rather have something I enjoyed that was a "cash grab" than someone's passion project that I thought was terrible. I respect someone doing something purely from their heart, but if the end product is terrible, the reason for making it is ultimately not as important.

they'll most likely have FAR more inherent value down the road as cautionary tales about stubborn egotism and filmmaking 101 about what NOT to do when taking chances and risks

There's no inherent value. Value by its very definition means there has to be a valuer. The artisitic value isn't found in the object, it's decided by the viewers who often don't know the how or why something was created. It's true that when art meets commerce, often times, art loses, but what one deems as artistic is a matter of perspective. For instance, the original ending to First Blood was Rambo offing himself. The whole film is about a man with PTSD, so killing himself made sense, but Stallone thought the better ending was Troutman convincing Rambo to turn himself in. Stallone didn't like the message it sent to vets who might be suffering from the same things Rambo went through, so they changed the ending. Kirk Douglas was originally supposed

And historically speaking, its often the riskiest ideas, the ones most frowned upon by corporate thinking

Historically innacurate. Let's not forget that corporations are also creative entites. (You still have yet to explain why you have this animosity towards corporations and not other forms of business) To be successful they had to come up with new innovative products, or new ways to deliver their products. That takes remarkable amounts of risk and intelligence. Business is a very creative endevor. And your example of Star Wars being rejected by most studios because they didn't get it isn't limited to art. Most new ideas in any walk of life are rejected by lots of people.

and should be WAY more concerned with the process on a creative level.

Why? I'm not concerned with the process as much as I am the end product.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Ummmm... shouldnt it be Kirk Douglas OPPOSED? And I agree with ABED and Jacob.

[ABED]

Whoops. I jump around and write stream of consciousness. What I meant was Kirk Douglas was supposed to play Troutman but he considered Stallone's ending "commercial", whereas killing Rambo off was what he considered "artistic".

[sintzu]

At least Super is getting better since the Champa saga has been starting. A lot of people here and outside of this site seem to be enjoying it.

The Champa arc is only 5 episodes in with one being a recap so 4 which were all non fighting episodes so we can't really say it's gotten better or not until we see the fighting which will start next week but based on it's 2 completed arcs, Super is a very mixed inconsistent series compared to it's predecessors especially Z which is inexcusable.

[precita]

I say let Super run about 100 episodes, then take another long break. By the time we hit 100 episodes they'll likely have exhausted a whole bunch of ideas and stories.