MistareFusion's Dragon Ball Dissection! (Updated 5/11/26!)

[Kid Buu]

Ha, perhaps an alternate universe where Yamcha and Tenshinhan fall into hell, and must summon the powers of Pegasus Seiya and Dragon Shiryu to fend off against Hades.

[Gaffer Tape]

I disagree with you teamwork examples. You're two samples seem to be Piccolo vs. 2nd Form Freeza and SSJ Vegeta vs. Android 18 (correct me if I'm wrong). Piccolo was already strong enough to handle Freeza 2nd Form and the others jumping in the #18 battle would lead to #17 interfering.

I also disagree with you on Serpent Road. I think showing Hell would ruin the mystique of it, I know it the Saiyan Arc anime and Resurrection of F did.

Wait, I thought Nappa did want to bring back Raditz, but Vegeta vetoed it?

I'm not saying there weren't "reasons" behind them (although I'm not sure how Piccolo being strong enough refutes that in any way), but they are still examples of characters (and the author) enforcing one-on-one matches so that able-bodied characters just stood around instead of doing anything.

I'm not worried about the mystique of hell. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other had the reference to it not have been made the way it was. But when you have a character warn another character about something that could go wrong, you absolutely have to do something with it. Imagine you're watching Star Wars. The heroes make it on to the Death Star. Obi-Wan tells Luke that his destiny lies along a different path from Obi-Wan's. Darth Vader senses Obi-Wan is on the station and says, "I must face him, alone." And then... they never encounter each other. Ever. As a writer, you don't do that! So I don't have any particular desire to see Hell. I don't care about Hell at all. But when Toriyama basically uses the narrative to let me know that Goku is going to fall into Hell (because there's absolutely no other reason from a writing perspective to give that information), and it never pays off in any way... I care about that. Because that's bad writing.

And, yes, Nappa does suggest bringing Nappa back to life. I just didn't think it was worth mentioning, at least not at this point. Nappa brings it up. Vegeta suggests an alternative. They both get behind it. So, truthfully, neither one of them gives a crap about bringing Raditz back to life. They both want immortality.

[Kid Buu]

I'm not saying there weren't "reasons" behind them (although I'm not sure how Piccolo being strong enough refutes that in any way), but they are still examples of characters (and the author) enforcing one-on-one matches so that able-bodied characters just stood around instead of doing anything.

The point is, if Piccolo is strong enough to handle Freeza by himself, then why have Gohan and Krillin join the battle? They'd only just get in the way.

I'm not worried about the mystique of hell. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other had the reference to it not have been made the way it was. But when you have a character warn another character about something that could go wrong, you absolutely have to do something with it.

Uh, no you don't have to do anything, ever hear of a red hearing? It's also just a line of dialogue, not some plot that was developed thoroughly and then just dropped like a rock.

Imagine you're watching Star Wars. The heroes make it on to the Death Star. Obi-Wan tells Luke that his destiny lies along a different path from Obi-Wan's. Darth Vader senses Obi-Wan is on the station and says, "I must face him, alone." And then... they never encounter each other. Ever. As a writer, you don't do that! So I don't have any particular desire to see Hell. I don't care about Hell at all. But when Toriyama basically uses the narrative to let me know that Goku is going to fall into Hell (because there's absolutely no other reason from a writing perspective to give that information), and it never pays off in any way... I care about that. Because that's bad writing.

There's a difference in context between "Be careful not to fall into the clouds, hell is down there and you'll never get out" (what the Viz manga says anyway) and "I must face him, alone." Obiwan's line implies he wants to fight Darth Vader alone, so it would be strange if he didn't fight him.

And, yes, Nappa does suggest bringing Nappa back to life. I just didn't think it was worth mentioning, at least not at this point. Nappa brings it up. Vegeta suggests an alternative. They both get behind it. So, truthfully, neither one of them gives a crap about bringing Raditz back to life. They both want immortality.

Of course he had to go with Vegeta's alternate, we know he's easily bullied by Vegeta, but the fact is Nappa did initially care enough to consider bringing Raditz back to life.

[jcogginsa]

One thing that's very amusing in hindsight is when they show up, it's pretty clear that Vegeta is meant to be a worse person than Nappa is. Neither is portrayed as a good guy, but at the same time Nappa does have some minor sympathetic characteristics (Chief among them his concern for his comrades) whilst Vegeta has none

[dbzfan7]

One thing that's very amusing in hindsight is when they show up, it's pretty clear that Vegeta is meant to be a worse person than Nappa is. Neither is portrayed as a good guy, but at the same time Nappa does have some minor sympathetic characteristics (Chief among them his concern for his comrades) whilst Vegeta has none

Yeah. I just went through the Saiyan arc again in the manga, and I gotta say I like this Vegeta more than I thought I would. He's cold, calculating, and I miss this. Now he kinda feels like a tsundre loud mouth to me. Like Tenshinhan, he kinda got boring the more good he became.

[Gaffer Tape]

The point is, if Piccolo is strong enough to handle Freeza by himself, then why have Gohan and Krillin join the battle? They'd only just get in the way.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't reasons (in fact, that's pretty much the exact reason I gave in the video). I'm just saying that it happens. The reasons Toriyama comes up to justify them are irrelevant to whether or not they do, in fact, regularly happen.

Uh, no you don't have to do anything, ever hear of a red hearing? It's also just a line of dialogue, not some plot that was developed thoroughly and then just dropped like a rock.

That's not a red herring. A red herring is purposely subverting expectations. Throwing the audience off-course. Tricking us. Which is very much doing something. So, yes, you do have to do something. Again, every. single. thing in a narrative has to be there for a reason.

There's a difference in context between "Be careful not to fall into the clouds, hell is down there and you'll never get out" (what the Viz manga says anyway) and "I must face him, alone." Obiwan's line implies he wants to fight Darth Vader alone, so it would be strange if he didn't fight him.

"No! No different! Only different in your mind! You must unlearn what you have learned."

The only difference is that one is properly paid off, and the other isn't. Again, what purpose does the line serve if not to set up Goku doing exactly that? If the answer is "nothing" then it should have been excised. If the answer is "to give us a broader understanding of what the DB afterlife is like" it fails.

Of course he had to go with Vegeta's alternate, we know he's easily bullied by Vegeta, but the fact is Nappa did initially care enough to consider bringing Raditz back to life.

Like I said, I didn't feel it wasn't relevant to this video to include that detail. And I'm not really sure what you're debating.

[Kid Buu]

Again, I'm not saying there aren't reasons (in fact, that's pretty much the exact reason I gave in the video). I'm just saying that it happens. The reasons Toriyama comes up to justify them are irrelevant to whether or not they do, in fact, regularly happen.

Yeah, but I don't really see why we need to have heroes ganging up on the villains. It's what I'm saying.

That's not a red herring. A red herring is purposely subverting expectations. Throwing the audience off-course. Tricking us. Which is very much doing something. So, yes, you do have to do something. Again, every. single. thing in a narrative has to be there for a reason.

Every single thing needs to be there in your opinion. I think your being being objective on a subjective criticism there.

"No! No different! Only different in your mind! You must unlearn what you have learned."

Feisty one you are!

The only difference is that one is properly paid off, and the other isn't. Again, what purpose does the line serve if not to set up Goku doing exactly that? If the answer is "nothing" then it should have been excised. If the answer is "to give us a broader understanding of what the DB afterlife is like" it fails.

I don't think the lines are similar in context at all.

Like I said, I didn't feel it wasn't relevant to this video to include that detail. And I'm not really sure what you're debating.

It seemed like in your video you were making it out like both of them didn't give a shit about bringing Raditz back, and I'm mentioning Nappa does bring it up

[Gaffer Tape]

Every single thing needs to be there in your opinion. I think your being being objective on a subjective criticism there.

To be fair, every rule of artistic criticism is based in opinion. They're not scientific laws. But they are generally accepted to be good practices to follow. I'm not just spouting off my personal opinion here and insisting you agree. I am citing a well-known and widely accepted rule of dramatic theory that, at the very least, has existed in its current form for well over a century. Now, exceptionally skilled writers can and do break the rules to their advantage. I likewise did not bring up a rule for the purpose of insisting a rule be arbitrarily followed but rather have explained in detail why I feel it should be followed in this scenario and how I feel the inclusion of the line hurts the narrative. But if you think I am wrong, please, by all means explain to me why this line should be in the story, and what it is that makes my assertions of it being damaging incorrect.

[Kid Buu]

I don't think you are wrong, but rather I disagree. I studied Film Criticism as one of my majors and don't believe anybody's criticism is wrong, but I do think people can interpret something differently. For example, artists like Stanley Kubrick were fans of doing the opposite of what is said here. They liked the idea of putting stuff out there and not going through with it, because it adds mystique to the lore and makes it interesting. In this case, I would ponder what could have happened to Goku, and that makes for interesting discussion for me. Now that I've have seen what Toriyama's hell is like, I find there is nothing interesting about it and nothing to discuss. Even in that example about the rifle in the video, I still disagree with the concept. If there was just a rifle hanging on a wall, it'd make me ponder "why does he have a gun? is he a hunter? does he have any aversion to killing? is he dangerous?" I would get all that mystique from him, even if the gun was never used in the story. Again, I don't think you are wrong in disliking this, it's just that we view these things differently. It's how these things work.

More importantly, I'd like to apologize if these posts are coming across as more passive-aggressive than intended. Since it's the internet, tone can be misinterpreted easily, and I hope you haven't taken this the wrong way.

[Captain Space]

Ha, perhaps an alternate universe where Yamcha and Tenshinhan fall into hell, and must summon the powers of Pegasus Seiya and Dragon Shiryu to fend off against Hades.

Goku spends the whole episode trying to get Shiryu to grant him wishes...

[Gaffer Tape]

Even in that example about the rifle in the video, I still disagree with the concept. If there was just a rifle hanging on a wall, it'd make me ponder "why does he have a gun? is he a hunter? does he have any aversion to killing? is he dangerous?"

I think you're taking the theory a bit too literally. Because, see, what you just described is a purpose for it being there. If the intent of the gun is to establish that a character collects guns or is a hunter or is a danger to the protagonist, then it fulfills Chekhov's Gun.

As for your Kubrick example, I'm not an expert on his work, so I could be wrong, but from what I've seen, he tended to be very particular about how he filmed things. Chekhov's Gun isn't a rule against randomness or non-sequiturs. Even they can very easily have a point. Discordant notes in a musical score can exist to make the listener feel uneasy. But you'd never just throw in notes for no reason at all.

For building lore, I have no problem with it as long as it's not overly done just for the sake of it. Giving details can help set the stage, so to speak, and I'm all for that. After all, we were just briefly inundated with the extremely interesting concepts and locations of the afterlife... only to immediately go to the most boring-looking part of it. My only problem is the way it's brought up because it is so obviously a set-up, whether or not Toriyama realized it.

More importantly, I'd like to apologize if these posts are coming across as more passive-aggressive than intended. Since it's the internet, tone can be misinterpreted easily, and I hope you haven't taken this the wrong way.

You're good. And right back at you.

[Kid Buu]

Kubrick films are definitely filled with random things that don't have a point. Like the bear giving blowjobs scene in The Shining. There's not really much purpose for that there, it just is. Although, I have heard in the book version that the scene is more integrated in the plot, but seeing as the film and book were so much different, I wouldn't really count it.

[Ajay]

Kubrick films are definitely filled with random things that don't have a point.

I wouldn't say that. Kubrick doesn't really seem like the type to put things in for no reason.

In fact, there's this phenomenal website dedicated to breaking down The Shining - http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20 ... %2016.html - Highly recommend it.

[Gaffer Tape]

I would say the bear giving a blowjob definitely has a point. Its point is to make us feel off-kilter. And it also does not attempt to give itself undue importance beyond that. Like I said, random things can have meaning too. Not having a point would be, if they arrived, and the caretaker said, completely seriously and not intended to be a joke, "Just remember one thing while you're here: if you encounter a bear giving someone a blowjob, stay away. Whatever you do, don't enter the room." And then, that never happens. That piece of advice goes completely unused, unmentioned, and ends up being completely irrelevant to anything that happens. The former serves a purpose, however seemingly random. The latter is poorly written.

[Kid Buu]

Kubrick films are definitely filled with random things that don't have a point.

I wouldn't say that. Kubrick doesn't really seem like the type to put things in for no reason.

In fact, there's this phenomenal website dedicated to breaking down The Shining - http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20 ... %2016.html - Highly recommend it.

But this is echoing what I initially tried to say? This is taking their own interpretation of the film from random shit. For example, I could see the reason why he's reading that Playgirl magazine is that he might just be interested in that interview, while the writer reads it as possible sexual abuse.

[jcogginsa]

I'd say the point of the falling into Hell thing was more to add an element of danger.

Without that, the only way for Goku to fail Snake Way is to not reach King Kai's in time, and i doubt many of the readers at the time would even consider that a possibility. By adding the danger of Hell, it gives Goku another way he can fail, and that is more useful than simply not getting there in time.

[Gaffer Tape]

And if that had been followed up in any way, I'd think it was great. But there is no threat. It's never treated as a danger. Goku is never worried about it. He never comes close to being in danger of falling off. You could literally cut that line entirely, and it would make no difference to the story or what happens.

And I really don't want to give myself too much away, but it should be clear already that I think the TV series did a much better job with this by, you know, actually using it. And it's not just that he falls into hell. Like you said, they actually present it as a danger. Several episodes before he does end up falling, there's a scene added where Goku tries to save time by jumping from portion to portion of the road. He gets a little overconfident, misses his mark, and almost falls in. He even has to fight off some ghostly hands reaching for him. And unless I'm confusing this with the scene where he falls asleep with his arm on the side of the road, he even injures his hand on the spikes while trying to reach the road. When he gets to safety, he sighs and says something to the effect of, "Hell's down there! I gotta be careful about that!" That is establishing the element of danger. By contrast, the manga mentioning once the fact that hell is down there and then treating us to nothing but happy, fluffy clouds is not establishing danger, in my opinion.

[Saiga]

I agree that it wasn't about adding danger. But that doesn't make it pointless to me - I think the whole point was just a silly, one-off, joke.

That's the impression I got from my first reading, and I think that's the most natural one. This oni is being very nonchalant about the afterlife, and Goku's a little weirded out by it. He casually mentions something pretty serious and (going off Viz) all Goku can respond with is "r-right..." the very next panel is about the oni telling Goku he doesn't have to worry about starving to death... because he's dead.

We did learn something about the afterlife, but I don't think that is at all the point of the scene. It's just a joke based on how oni in the afterlife operate, learning something about the afterlife is just a bonus.

Toei did follow up on that, and in doing so played the original joke as something serious. Like they did with the Saiyaman's identity.

[Kid Buu]

Through, I'm actually not a fan of the material in-between Raditz and Nappa in the anime either, but I think that might be a discussion saved for another day.

[Gaffer Tape]

RE: Saiga

I'll be perfectly honest: that's by far the most convincing argument in favor of it I've heard so far. It's an angle I hadn't considered, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree that it seems reasonable it might have been Toriyama's intention. I still don't think, regardless of intention, that the line really works, even in that context. Intentional or not, it still feels like a dropped set-up. But I do really like that idea.

I'll also confide, while I still stand by what I said, this is, in certain ways, an arc I have always been somewhat afraid to review. And that's because the TV version of this arc was my first exposure to the Dragon Ball franchise, and it's what made me fall in love with it. And I remember later reading the manga version of it for the first time and thinking how empty it felt in some ways in comparison to the TV version. So, for at least the past three years, and, hell, longer, since I had to come up with the scores before I even started, I had to do serious soul searching to figure out whether that feeling was because of nostalgia or because I analytically believed that the TV series picked up on opportunities that Toriyama seemed to just completely drop or gloss over. And, well, ultimately, I've largely come to accept I feel it's the latter. But I still feel compelled to tread carefully in these waters and double and triple check my own feelings.