The end of "Akira Toriyama canon"

[AliTheZombie13]

What is wrong with "suspension of disbelief"? It's a common device that is required to consume any story.

Do you not "suspend your disbelief" when you accept that there are magical flying lizards who can spit fire in Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones?

Are you not "suspending your disbelief" whenever you see some dude surviving a planet explosion (impossible)?

We see yet again a case of Super being held to impossibly-high standards. These are impossible standards to meet for any fictional story.

Actually, at least Super gave a reason for Beerus not doing anything in DBZ, as he was asleep and he is a cat (who sleep a lot). What reason did DBZ give for Supreme Kai Shin not one-tapping Frieza and ending his reign of misery and terror over the universe?

It's not "impossibly high standards" to demand consistent, logical writing from a sequel series.

[SupremeKai25]

What is wrong with "suspension of disbelief"? It's a common device that is required to consume any story.

Do you not "suspend your disbelief" when you accept that there are magical flying lizards who can spit fire in Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones?

Are you not "suspending your disbelief" whenever you see some dude surviving a planet explosion (impossible)?

We see yet again a case of Super being held to impossibly-high standards. These are impossible standards to meet for any fictional story.

Actually, at least Super gave a reason for Beerus not doing anything in DBZ, as he was asleep and he is a cat (who sleep a lot). What reason did DBZ give for Supreme Kai Shin not one-tapping Frieza and ending his reign of misery and terror over the universe?

It's not "impossibly high standards" to demand consistent, logical writing from a sequel series.

Super has consistent and logical writing. Pretty much everything that happens in Super has a given reason.

There are no "inexplicable plot holes" from Super. Even if a development seems completely random or sudden, the story provides some kind of reasoning for it.

Also, Yes, it is an impossibly-high standard to demand "consistent, logical writing" from a sequel to DBZ, considering how DBZ itself most certainly did not have "consistent, logical writing".

[AliTheZombie13]

Super has consistent and logical writing. Pretty much everything that happens in Super has a given reason.

There are no "inexplicable plot holes" from Super. Even if a development seems completely random or sudden, the story provides some kind of reasoning for it.

Also, Yes, it is an impossibly-high standard to demand "consistent, logical writing" from a sequel to DBZ, considering how DBZ itself most certainly did not have "consistent, logical writing".

Dragon Ball mostly had consistent, logical writing up until the Namek Arc, then it started to deteriorate. This is from Toriyama himself, who said he felt tired after writing Namek, so he just started writing whatever. You deeming the quality of writing in Super to be acceptable because "the original was just as bad" is an insult to everything that came before.

[kemuri07]

Super has consistent and logical writing. Pretty much everything that happens in Super has a given reason.

There are no "inexplicable plot holes" from Super. Even if a development seems completely random or sudden, the story provides some kind of reasoning for it.

Also, Yes, it is an impossibly-high standard to demand "consistent, logical writing" from a sequel to DBZ, considering how DBZ itself most certainly did not have "consistent, logical writing".

Dragon Ball mostly had consistent, logical writing up until the Namek Arc, then it started to deteriorate. This is from Toriyama himself, who said he felt tired after writing Namek, so he just started writing whatever. You deeming the quality of writing in Super to be acceptable because "the original was just as bad" is an insult to everything that came before.

Preach it.

[tonysoprano300]

What is wrong with "suspension of disbelief"? It's a common device that is required to consume any story.

Do you not "suspend your disbelief" when you accept that there are magical flying lizards who can spit fire in Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones?

Are you not "suspending your disbelief" whenever you see some dude surviving a planet explosion (impossible)?

We see yet again a case of Super being held to impossibly-high standards. These are impossible standards to meet for any fictional story.

Actually, at least Super gave a reason for Beerus not doing anything in DBZ, as he was asleep and he is a cat (who sleep a lot). What reason did DBZ give for Supreme Kai Shin not one-tapping Frieza and ending his reign of misery and terror over the universe?

To be perfectly clear, I don’t discriminate between DBS and DB in terms of criticism. There were lots of things in DB that didn’t really make sense either.

Suspension of disbelief is more about whether a story is able to follow the logic and the rules that it set for itself. For example If Goku getting shot through the chest by Zorbet was a life threatening situation then logically speaking, getting impaled by Zamasu should be as well.

Another example would be goku magically knowing how to read minds in the namek arc.

Its not about whether DB follows the logic of the real world because it never presented itself to be that way

[SupremeKai25]

Super has consistent and logical writing. Pretty much everything that happens in Super has a given reason.

There are no "inexplicable plot holes" from Super. Even if a development seems completely random or sudden, the story provides some kind of reasoning for it.

Also, Yes, it is an impossibly-high standard to demand "consistent, logical writing" from a sequel to DBZ, considering how DBZ itself most certainly did not have "consistent, logical writing".

Dragon Ball mostly had consistent, logical writing up until the Namek Arc, then it started to deteriorate. This is from Toriyama himself, who said he felt tired after writing Namek, so he just started writing whatever. You deeming the quality of writing in Super to be acceptable because "the original was just as bad" is an insult to everything that came before.

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say DBZ was bad, nor that DBS was bad. I said that DBZ also had inconsistencies and plot-holes, so expecting Super to be any different was wishful thinking at best.

You even conceded that Toriyama "started writing whatever" for 2/4 of DBZ, so why would you expect Super to be any different?

If anything, Toriyama vastly improved his planning in DBS. Every single arc of DBS is functional to the original premise of Goku chasing after the realm of the Gods to become the worthy rival of Beerus. Every single arc ties to that overall narrative, which proves that Toriyama in Super improved his overall story planning.

The final part of your post is just the usual nostalgia you see in every long-running fandom.

"You can criticize and throw insults at Dragon Ball Super for this and this and this, but you CANNOT redirect that criticism at DBZ! Because... because it's DBZ! I grew up with it! You can't criticize it!"

I see the same attitude in the Star Wars fandom whenever I defend the Disney trilogy.

[MasenkoHA]

Another example would be goku magically knowing how to read minds in the namek arc.

Way back in the 21st Tenkaichi Budokai arc it was established disciplined martial artist can read minds as seen with Roshi reading Nam's. I don't see an issue with Goku doing the same. Chi pretty much amounts to "do anything powers" in the DragonBall verse and a lot of other martial arts fantasy stories.

[kemuri07]

Super has consistent and logical writing. Pretty much everything that happens in Super has a given reason.

There are no "inexplicable plot holes" from Super. Even if a development seems completely random or sudden, the story provides some kind of reasoning for it.

Also, Yes, it is an impossibly-high standard to demand "consistent, logical writing" from a sequel to DBZ, considering how DBZ itself most certainly did not have "consistent, logical writing".

Dragon Ball mostly had consistent, logical writing up until the Namek Arc, then it started to deteriorate. This is from Toriyama himself, who said he felt tired after writing Namek, so he just started writing whatever. You deeming the quality of writing in Super to be acceptable because "the original was just as bad" is an insult to everything that came before.

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say DBZ was bad, nor that DBS was bad. I said that DBZ also had inconsistencies and plot-holes, so expecting Super to be any different was wishful thinking at best.

You even conceded that Toriyama "started writing whatever" for 2/4 of DBZ, so why would you expect Super to be any different?

If anything, Toriyama vastly improved his planning in DBS. Every single arc of DBS is functional to the original premise of Goku chasing after the realm of the Gods to become the worthy rival of Beerus. Every single arc ties to that overall narrative, which proves that Toriyama in Super improved his overall story planning.

The final part of your post is just the usual nostalgia you see in every long-running fandom.

"You can criticize and throw insults at Dragon Ball Super for this and this and this, but you CANNOT redirect that criticism at DBZ! Because... because it's DBZ! I grew up with it! You can't criticize it!"

I see the same attitude in the Star Wars fandom whenever I defend the Disney trilogy.

It's not a matter of "you can't criticize DBZ because it's from my childhood." and more "DBZ might have flaws but it's well written and compelling that you don't either notice them or don't care."

I talk shit about Super all the time, not because of plot holes or because I don't think things are properly line up, it's because I think Super is a bad product. period. And because of that, the things I might let slide with DBZ, I don't with Super. Because there's nothing to make me go "oh well this is some real compelling shit." With Super, all there is are the flaws.

Super is a constant reminder that DBZ did nearly everything it did, but just better.

[SupremeKai25]

Suspension of disbelief is more about whether a story is able to follow the logic and the rules that it set for itself. For example If Goku getting shot through the chest by Zorbet was a life threatening situation then logically speaking, getting impaled by Zamasu should be as well.

And in fact, when Zamasu impaled him, it was a life-threatening situation. He got a brief power-boost from adrenaline because Zamasu told him he butchered his family, then he got oneshot and taken out of the fight. As soon as he returns to the Present, he is placed into Capsule Corps healing pod to recover.

You saw the same thing with Sorbet. Sorbet fired a laser at Goku and pierced his heart and pretty much took him out of the fight until he was given a senzu bean.

Injuries DO matter in Super from a writing perspective. They only SEEM like they don't matter because there's no blood involved, which is a presentation issue and not a writing one.

I talk shit about Super all the time, not because of plot holes or because I don't think things are properly line up, it's because I think Super is a bad product. period. And because of that, the things I might let slide with DBZ, I don't with Super. Because there's nothing to make me go "oh well this is some real compelling shit." With Super, all there is are the flaws.

Really? You did not find anything compelling with Super?

You did not find the concept of Frieza joining the protagonist side for one arc compelling? The idea of an irredeemable scumbag like Frieza being forced on the same team as Goku?

You did not find the concept of Ultra Instinct and each body part moving autonomously compelling? All the training sequences with Whis to get to that moment?

You did not find the catch-up character interactions with Future Trunks compelling, to see how Trunks was doing after the end of the Cell saga (and also to see how he dealt with Majin Buu which was an open-ended thread in the original series)?

What about the colourful cast of new deities and mortals from the other universes, each with their own unique aesthetics and fighting styles? You truly did not find any of that world-building compelling?

I see many high-points of Super, starting from the entire Tournament of Power and Ultra Instinct, which was one of the most iconic and memorable Anime periods from the 2010s. Ultra Instinct pretty much broke streaming sites because there was that much internet traffic around the franchise.

I won't attribute everything to Nostalgia, but I do think that Nostalgia plays a major factor in these kinds of discussions, for any franchise that recently saw a "Revival" (like Star Wars). Nostalgia/Emotional attachment DOES play a factor and Super clearly doesn't benefit from that since it's so recent.

[tonysoprano300]

Suspension of disbelief is more about whether a story is able to follow the logic and the rules that it set for itself. For example If Goku getting shot through the chest by Zorbet was a life threatening situation then logically speaking, getting impaled by Zamasu should be as well.

And in fact, when Zamasu impaled him, it was a life-threatening situation. He got a brief power-boost from adrenaline because Zamasu told him he butchered his family, then he got oneshot and taken out of the fight. As soon as he returns to the Present, he is placed into Capsule Corps healing pod to recover.

You saw the same thing with Sorbet. Sorbet fired a laser at Goku and pierced his heart and pretty much took him out of the fight until he was given a senzu bean.

Injuries DO matter in Super from a writing perspective. They only SEEM like they don't matter because there's no blood involved, which is a presentation issue and not a writing one.

Its just never shown to be that way in the past, where Goku can get impaled and then actually get a power up because of Adrenaline. When Vegeta broke Gokus legs in saiyan arc, his legs were just broken. It didn’t matter how much Goku wanted to save his friends or how much he loved his family, Gokus legs were simply broken and as a result he wasn’t able to stand. Same thing against piccolo jr, Goku gets a shot through the chest and has to resort to tricks and tactics to overcome that, same thing against Moro and same thing against golden frieza.

It also just opens up another can of worms regarding the whole idea of rage boosts and why Goku is even getting one to begin with given that its not really a trait that he has.

But like i said, i dont discriminate

[tonysoprano300]

Super has consistent and logical writing. Pretty much everything that happens in Super has a given reason.

There are no "inexplicable plot holes" from Super. Even if a development seems completely random or sudden, the story provides some kind of reasoning for it.

Also, Yes, it is an impossibly-high standard to demand "consistent, logical writing" from a sequel to DBZ, considering how DBZ itself most certainly did not have "consistent, logical writing".

Dragon Ball mostly had consistent, logical writing up until the Namek Arc, then it started to deteriorate. This is from Toriyama himself, who said he felt tired after writing Namek, so he just started writing whatever. You deeming the quality of writing in Super to be acceptable because "the original was just as bad" is an insult to everything that came before.

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say DBZ was bad, nor that DBS was bad. I said that DBZ also had inconsistencies and plot-holes, so expecting Super to be any different was wishful thinking at best.

You even conceded that Toriyama "started writing whatever" for 2/4 of DBZ, so why would you expect Super to be any different?

If anything, Toriyama vastly improved his planning in DBS. Every single arc of DBS is functional to the original premise of Goku chasing after the realm of the Gods to become the worthy rival of Beerus. Every single arc ties to that overall narrative, which proves that Toriyama in Super improved his overall story planning.

The final part of your post is just the usual nostalgia you see in every long-running fandom.

"You can criticize and throw insults at Dragon Ball Super for this and this and this, but you CANNOT redirect that criticism at DBZ! Because... because it's DBZ! I grew up with it! You can't criticize it!"

I see the same attitude in the Star Wars fandom whenever I defend the Disney trilogy.

Criticism isn’t inherently a bad thing, its a normal part of story analysis. I love the saiyan arc for example, I think its quite possibly the best DB story we’ve ever gotten and the actual battle is one of the best I've seen in any comic or animated product. But Ill still criticize the hell out of it despite all that.

But I do agree that people shouldn’t romanticize earlier DB products, and that they do have a capacity to do so. But I wouldn’t necessarily disagree entirely with some of the criticisms of Super

[AliTheZombie13]

You even conceded that Toriyama "started writing whatever" for 2/4 of DBZ, so why would you expect Super to be any different?

Because DBZ was written on a weekly crunch by a writer who was overworked and tired.
BoG was not, neither were his plot points for what came after it in Super.

The final part of your post is just the usual nostalgia you see in every long-running fandom.

"You can criticize and throw insults at Dragon Ball Super for this and this and this, but you CANNOT redirect that criticism at DBZ! Because... because it's DBZ! I grew up with it! You can't criticize it!"

Here's where you are severely mistaken:
I haven't watched DBZ in my entire life up until last year.
I have made several comments on this very forum criticizing the quality of the Namek, Cell and Boo arcs.
I'm not giving Super a free pass just because I thought DBZ was just as bad, DB has shown to me it can and should do better, instead of just milking the franchise for the sake of it.

[SupremeKai25]

Its just never shown to be that way in the past, where Goku can get impaled and then actually get a power up because of Adrenaline. When Vegeta broke Gokus legs in saiyan arc, his legs were just broken. It didn’t matter how much Goku wanted to save his friends or how much he loved his family, Gokus legs were simply broken and as a result he wasn’t able to stand. Same thing against piccolo jr, Goku gets a shot through the chest and has to resort to tricks and tactics to overcome that, same thing against Moro and same thing against golden frieza.

It also just opens up another can of worms regarding the whole idea of rage boosts and why Goku is even getting one to begin with given that its not really a trait that he has.

But like i said, i dont discriminate

Actually, you have those exchanges in Super too. For instance, when Goku breaks his arms in his beam struggle against Fused Zamasu, he resorts to attacking Zamasu with only kicks.

That can of worms was already opened by Toriyama in 2013 with the "My Bulma" scene. From this perspective, Super remained consistent by simply giving Goku his version of "My bulma".

Criticism isn’t inherently a bad thing, its a normal part of story analysis. I love the saiyan arc for example, I think its quite possibly the best DB story we’ve ever gotten and the actual battle is one of the best I've seen in any comic or animated product. But Ill still criticize the hell out of it despite all that.

But I do agree that people shouldn’t romanticize earlier DB products, and that they do have a capacity to do so. But I wouldn’t necessarily disagree entirely with some of the criticisms of Super

Yes, People start romanticizing earlier products when new ones get released.

I remember the 2000s, I remember everyone making fun of the Star Wars Prequels and saying that they were trash and even bullying the kid actor. Come the Disney trilogy, and suddenly it became cool to say that the Prequels were underrated gems.

I see the same thing happening with Dragon Ball. Before Super, people rightfully pointed out how incosistent DBZ was at times and how many things didn't make sense and were just rule of cool.

All the criticism you see levied today against Super -- that it doesn't "feel" like Dragon Ball, that it "feels" like fanfiction, etc. they were levied against the Cell and Buu arcs before Super was a thing.

In fact, I remember very well that the Buu saga was very hated before 2013, with many people on forums saying that it didn't feel like Dragon Ball (all the criticisms you now see directed at Super). I'm sure you could even dig up some old threads about this.

You see this in this very thread, apparently it's insulting to point out that DBZ arguably had more plot-holes than Super.

But it actually did. Super's worst "plot-holes" are not nearly as bad as Perfect Cell "Somehow the nucleus in my head survived Goku destroying my head lol"

Here's where you are severely mistaken:
I haven't watched DBZ in my entire life up until last year.
I have made several comments on this very forum criticizing the quality of the Namek, Cell and Boo arcs.
I'm not giving Super a free pass just because I thought DBZ was just as bad, DB has shown to me it can and should do better, instead of just milking the franchise for the sake of it.

How is Super milking the franchise?

The Anime lasted 3 years and ended in 2018. Since then, we've only had two movies. Two movies in 6 years is really not a lot when you consider that DBZ was getting a new movie every year.

We went almost 4 years (Broly movie-Super Hero movie) without any new animated content.

The manga is monthly and spent the last 1.5 year retelling the Super Hero movie.

Actually, Super isn't milking the franchise that much. If Super was milking the franchise as you claim, I'd have a new Super episode to watch tomorrow.

[AliTheZombie13]

How is Super milking the franchise?

The Anime lasted 3 years and ended in 2018. Since then, we've only had two movies. Two movies in 6 years is really not a lot when you consider that DBZ was getting a new movie every year.

We went almost 4 years (Broly movie-Super Hero movie) without any new animated content.

The manga is monthly and spent the last 1.5 year retelling the Super Hero movie.

Actually, Super isn't milking the franchise that much. If Super was milking the franchise as you claim, I'd have a new Super episode to watch tomorrow.

These two quotes, one from Toriyama and one from the staff of Super, should be telling you that quality was never the point:

"Dragon Ball once became a thing of the past to me, but after that, I got angry about the live action movie, re-wrote an entire movie script, and now I'm complaining about the quality of the new TV anime, so it seems that Dragon Ball has grown on me [so] much that I can't leave it alone." - Akira Toriyama

"Dragon ______, where I'm working at the moment, is beyond help. The animation director can only check the layout for the next 10 days. No matter what, the quality can't be guaranteed. Who messed the schedule up, and when?" - Staff of Super

[WittyUsername]

I’ve been of the opinion since 2020 that the DBS anime would be better off not returning, and now that Toriyama is no longer with us, I think it’s about time to put the kibosh on DBS as a brand in general.

[SupremeKai25]

How is Super milking the franchise?

The Anime lasted 3 years and ended in 2018. Since then, we've only had two movies. Two movies in 6 years is really not a lot when you consider that DBZ was getting a new movie every year.

We went almost 4 years (Broly movie-Super Hero movie) without any new animated content.

The manga is monthly and spent the last 1.5 year retelling the Super Hero movie.

Actually, Super isn't milking the franchise that much. If Super was milking the franchise as you claim, I'd have a new Super episode to watch tomorrow.

These two quotes, one from Toriyama and one from the staff of Super, should be telling you that quality was never the point:

"Dragon Ball once became a thing of the past to me, but after that, I got angry about the live action movie, re-wrote an entire movie script, and now I'm complaining about the quality of the new TV anime, so it seems that Dragon Ball has grown on me [so] much that I can't leave it alone." - Akira Toriyama

"Dragon ______, where I'm working at the moment, is beyond help. The animation director can only check the layout for the next 10 days. No matter what, the quality can't be guaranteed. Who messed the schedule up, and when?" - Staff of Super

Yeah, quality was never the point, so they decided to end it on a high note in 2018 and we haven't had a new Anime series since then.

So how Toei is milking the brand when we've only had 2 movies in the last 6 years? (both of which had heavy input from Toriyama, so they were not "milking" the brand, they were just doing what Toriyama wanted to do)

You want true milking? Go watch Naruto Shippuden with its 41% filler count, then you'll realize that Toei was actually quite mild with Super. Not only they ended it after only 131 episodes (which isn't a lot for a weekly anime, for reference Boruto had 300 episodes), they also kept the blatant filler episodes to a minimum.

Actually, going into the late 2020s and early 2030s, I expect many more people to realize what an underrated gem DBS was at the time. Only 131 episodes, very low filler count, constant improvement in terms of art and animation, and very high-note ending. To top it all off, the very few filler episodes we got are the best filler in the franchise (Yamcha baseball episode, Arale episode, Super Saiyan Mr. Satan episode, etc).

[AliTheZombie13]

Yeah, quality was never the point, so they decided to end it on a high note in 2018 and we haven't had a new Anime series since then.

So how Toei is milking the brand when we've only had 2 movies in the last 6 years? (both of which had heavy input from Toriyama, so they were not "milking" the brand, they were just doing what Toriyama wanted to do)

You want true milking? Go watch Naruto Shippuden with its 41% filler count, then you'll realize that Toei was actually quite mild with Super. Not only they ended it after only 131 episodes (which isn't a lot for a weekly anime, for reference Boruto had 300 episodes), they also kept the blatant filler episodes to a minimum.

You may like Super all you want, but the fact is that it started because Toei wanted to revive DB from the grave when it had already well ended in the 90's, Toriyama didn't, but Toei did it anyway, and Toriyama thought they sucked so much at it that he had to compromise.

That, my friend, is milking.

Actually, going into the late 2020s and early 2030s, I expect many more people to realize what an underrated gem DBS was at the time. Only 131 episodes, very low filler count, constant improvement in terms of art and animation, and very high-note ending. To top it all off, the very few filler episodes we got are the best filler in the franchise (Yamcha baseball episode, Arale episode, Super Saiyan Mr. Satan episode, etc).

It's not that I'm opposed to new DB content, I like BoG (movie version) and Super Hero. It's just that the vast majority of Super comes off to me as a bad, heavily commercialized product with little soul or artistic merit behind it. It's as simple as that.

[Majin Buu]

It's not that I'm opposed to new DB content, I like BoG (movie version) and Super Hero.

While I do enjoy both of these as well for the most part and think they're the only revival material strong enough to justify the revival's existence at all, my core position has always been "We never needed more Dragon Ball" so even taking those works into account, I wouldn't feel like much of value would be lost if the revival never happened.

It's just that the vast majority of Super comes off to me as a bad, heavily commercialized product with little soul or artistic merit behind it. It's as simple as that.

For once I agree with you, and it rubs me the wrong way when people who like Super (and Heroes for that matter) paint those who don't like it as if there's no legitimacy to that position at all. There's a difference between "I like Super so I disagree that it's bad and here's where I think its strengths lie" vs. "Super is bad is an illegitimate viewpoint that people only buy into because of recency bias/nostalgia bias for the original series."

Are there people who only hate on Super because it's new? Sure, but certain Super fans come off like they think those types make up the majority of Super's detractors and it feels like a convenient excuse to avoid having to engage with the more legitimate complaints against Super.

[MasenkoHA]

It's not that I'm opposed to new DB content, I like BoG (movie version) and Super Hero.

While I do enjoy both of these as well for the most part and think they're the only revival material strong enough to justify the revival's existence at all, my core position has always been "We never needed more Dragon Ball" so even taking those works into account, I wouldn't feel like much of value would be lost if the revival never happened.

That's where I stand. I liked the revival era in general, but we didn't need it and I would be fine if it never existed.

[Grimlock]

and it rubs me the wrong way when people who like Super (and Heroes for that matter) paint those who don't like it as if there's no legitimacy to that position at all.

Care to provide us with a few examples of that?