Toriyama’s Kanzenban Ending Versus Dragon Ball GT Ending: Which One Is The Best?

[Skar]

It's all very vague. If he ended up in DB's typical afterlife, why the ambiguity? Whether he was in fact dead, he might as well be since he's gone and no one can bring him back.

I agree it was vague but I figured they could've meant something else since he didn't have a halo and aged to become an adult again after 100 years. He also went to say good bye to Piccolo which wouldn't be necessary if he was just going to hanging out in Other World like before.

[ABED]

Where do we go when we die? People have different answers but not one we universally agree on.

This isn't some grand mystery or big unanswered question for people. We don't universally agree on a lot of things that we know to be true but that's not because it isn't knowledge.

As for GT's ending I don't think it's clear whether Goku's dead or not, just that he's gone and likely for good. Although it seems like he went with Shenlong to whatever place Shenlong goes when he's not summoned.

So in effect, he's dead. If he's gone from the living world and he can't be reached by anyone, he's essentially dead.

[Skar]

So in effect, he's dead. If he's gone from the living world and he can't be reached by anyone, he's essentially dead.

Deader than usual? Maybe he sacrificed his life for Shenron to fulfill that last wish and had to leave with him instead of going to the regular Other World. They left it as a mystery but I just think they were going for something more than "he's dead" because all the cast knows where they go once they die and this seemed to be an exception.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

So in effect, he's dead. If he's gone from the living world and he can't be reached by anyone, he's essentially dead.

Deader than usual? Maybe he sacrificed his life for Shenron to fulfill that last wish and had to leave with him instead of going to the regular Other World. They left it as a mystery but I just think they were going for something more than "he's dead" because all the cast knows where they go once they die and this seemed to be an exception.

Maybe absorbing the Dragon Balls did something to Goku as he was flying away with Shenron after saving the world from the Evil Star Dragons, i mean the writers intentionally made that part in GT ep 64 rather vague by design so with that happening maybe he became a vessel for them or something and gained some kind of unnatural higher ethereal existence and went to some far off place. It's open to interpretation (and has been since said episode aired back in late 1997) so if that is the case then it's certainly different than the previous times in the series where Goku explicitly went to the Next World following both of his sacrifices. Who knows, it could be a different kind of dead/gone/whatever in universe from what we have already seen.

[ABED]

So in effect, he's dead. If he's gone from the living world and he can't be reached by anyone, he's essentially dead.

Deader than usual? Maybe he sacrificed his life for Shenron to fulfill that last wish and had to leave with him instead of going to the regular Other World. They left it as a mystery but I just think they were going for something more than "he's dead" because all the cast knows where they go once they die and this seemed to be an exception.

He is in effect dead. Forget about the logic of it. Think about its intended effect on the audience. If he's dead in the way that's typically shown in DB, then it's not a big deal. He's been there before and can be brought back. At the very least, he's someplace he and the audience knows and there are a few happy reunions waiting for him when his friends and family finally pass away. GT's ending has him gone and unable to be brought back. After a 10 year run, DB was finally ending. The point is to put the characters in the same situation as the audience - something/someone they love is gone and as far as they knew not coming back.

[Skar]

He is in effect dead. Forget about the logic of it. Think about its intended effect on the audience. If he's dead in the way that's typically shown in DB, then it's not a big deal. He's been there before and can be brought back. At the very least, he's someplace he and the audience knows and there are a few happy reunions waiting for him when his friends and family finally pass away. GT's ending has him gone and unable to be brought back. After a 10 year run, DB was finally ending. The point is to put the characters in the same situation as the audience - something/someone they love is gone and as far as they knew not coming back.

That's what I'm saying though. He could be dead but there could be still be some logic behind it. There's a mystery of what happened exactly but I think they were still trying to convey that there was more to it and that's more permanent compared to the other times he died.

[Magnificent Ponta]

That's what I'm saying though. He could be dead but there could be still be some logic behind it. There's a mystery of what happened exactly but I think they were still trying to convey that there was more to it and that's more permanent compared to the other times he died.

This may be wide of the mark (and admittedly, he doesn't make the linkage himself), but a comment from Derek Padula in Dragon Ball Culture (Vol. 2) seemed to me to present an interesting possible association which might stand behind at least one facet of what might be going on in GT's ending:

Dragons take on a symbolic role in Daoism where they represent the divine energy and ascension of a Daoist cultivator. Daoist immortals are able to sit or stand on the heads of dragons as the dragon takes them into heaven during their bairi feisheng ("ascension in broad daylight"). This is a symbolic representation of a practitioner's mastery over their energy [...] they attain the Dao, become an immortal, and rise up to heaven. Furthermore, it is said that the practitioner cultivates a Dragon within the microcosmic universe of their own body, from conception to adulthood, so it is their own dragon emerging out of their bodies in this dimension that takes them to the higher realm.

Tweaked a bit, this could perhaps point towards a representation of a moment of transcendence for Goku. Just a thought.

[MyVisionity]

:

Dragons take on a symbolic role in Daoism where they represent the divine energy and ascension of a Daoist cultivator. Daoist immortals are able to sit or stand on the heads of dragons as the dragon takes them into heaven during their bairi feisheng ("ascension in broad daylight"). This is a symbolic representation of a practitioner's mastery over their energy [...] they attain the Dao, become an immortal, and rise up to heaven. Furthermore, it is said that the practitioner cultivates a Dragon within the microcosmic universe of their own body, from conception to adulthood, so it is their own dragon emerging out of their bodies in this dimension that takes them to the higher realm.

Tweaked a bit, this could perhaps point towards a representation of a moment of transcendence for Goku. Just a thought.

Thanks, this is good information to know! Definitely not off the mark. It makes sense given what we see transpire in the episode.

[WittyUsername]

I think the most likely intention of GT’s ending is that Goku has now ascended to some higher form of existence that can’t really be comprehended by anyone else, not even King Enma. Of course, that doesn’t really make much sense, given that Shenlong is far from the most powerful being in the Dragon Ball universe, but it does bring a definitive sense of closure.

[ABED]

He is in effect dead. Forget about the logic of it. Think about its intended effect on the audience. If he's dead in the way that's typically shown in DB, then it's not a big deal. He's been there before and can be brought back. At the very least, he's someplace he and the audience knows and there are a few happy reunions waiting for him when his friends and family finally pass away. GT's ending has him gone and unable to be brought back. After a 10 year run, DB was finally ending. The point is to put the characters in the same situation as the audience - something/someone they love is gone and as far as they knew not coming back.

That's what I'm saying though. He could be dead but there could be still be some logic behind it. There's a mystery of what happened exactly but I think they were still trying to convey that there was more to it and that's more permanent compared to the other times he died.

The point wasn't the logic, it's the symbolism. He's gone and so is Dragon Ball.

[Skar]

This may be wide of the mark (and admittedly, he doesn't make the linkage himself), but a comment from Derek Padula in Dragon Ball Culture (Vol. 2) seemed to me to present an interesting possible association which might stand behind at least one facet of what might be going on in GT's ending:

Dragons take on a symbolic role in Daoism where they represent the divine energy and ascension of a Daoist cultivator. Daoist immortals are able to sit or stand on the heads of dragons as the dragon takes them into heaven during their bairi feisheng ("ascension in broad daylight"). This is a symbolic representation of a practitioner's mastery over their energy [...] they attain the Dao, become an immortal, and rise up to heaven. Furthermore, it is said that the practitioner cultivates a Dragon within the microcosmic universe of their own body, from conception to adulthood, so it is their own dragon emerging out of their bodies in this dimension that takes them to the higher realm.

Tweaked a bit, this could perhaps point towards a representation of a moment of transcendence for Goku. Just a thought.

Wow that was interesting! We won't know for sure but I just thought it was fun to speculate what they could've had in mind. I like this theory.