Writers - What Can/Can't They Do?

[Grimlock]

Inspired by something I saw, I want to ask: how much do you think a(nother) writer can put their own qualities into somebody else's work?

Let me clarify: It is well known that the likes of Bardock TV Special is not something Toriyama would normally do, because he was not known for writing serious stories. On top of that, Toriyama said he was not good with romantic plots, which is why we barely see anything too serious or (a well-crafted) romance.

So the questions are: Should any other writer insert those characteristics, even if they are good at serious and/or romantic stuff? If so, by how much can they do that before it is labeled "it's not Dragon Ball anymore"? If not, should the writer be limited by the original author's own qualities and weaknesses and shy away from any other aspect that the original author unintentionally¹ shied away from?


¹ In the case of romance, it is unintentional because Toriyama was not good at it. It's unknown if Dragon Ball would have more romantic plots had Toriyama been good at it.

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

As long as another writer is consistent with Toriyama's world and characters to the extent it feels organic I don't see an issue.

The worldbuilding should follow concepts established (as seen in the original manga) or implied (in the case of anime filler) by Toriyama. Existing characters should be accurately portrayed according to those guidelines based on their history, obviously there is more wiggle room with original characters but ideally they should feel like they fit in to Toriyama's world.

The Bardock special is indeed a good example, it's something Toriyama would have never written but because the saiyans were a warrior race and not known for being kind and loving the character of Bardock and general feel of the special is very natural. The fact that fans can watch the Bardock special and see the saiyans, their world and civilization feels exactly like Toriyama hinted shows Takao Koyama was paying attention, and thankfully he was rewarded with Toriyama's admiration.

Interestingly in that Special Selection DVD comment, which predates Dragon Ball Minus Toriyama did say he would have taken a more lighthearted approach to writing Bardock, which is clearly what we got, but he admitted to giving Bardock that brutal edge, which he was clearly okay with the interpretation of the character as a cold, ruthless warrior regardless of his own story written later saying otherwise. One thing I love about Super Broly is that it split the difference by giving Bardock a redemption arc with him wanting to save something for a change despite living mercilessly thus far.

Atsushi Maekawa also described the approach taken with GT as getting back to the series roots and bringing back that mixture of comedy and action. Whether or not GT feels like Dragon Ball is up to interpretation, but it is along these lines we can see it was a true and earnest attempt, which, much like the Bardock special was endorsed by Toriyama.

The ending of GT is notably un-Toriyama but is loved by fans, largely because it feels mythical, its also not unlike Goku to leave his family and friends for unspecified lengths of time, to reminisce about old times with Kuririn/Krillin or bid farewell to Piccolo so despite not being written by Toriyama there is little to no doubt Atsushi Maekawa knew how his characters could be written faithfully. The intentional ambiguity about what happened to Goku, much like History of Bardock's more serious tone could be considered different takes or new, innovative approaches to Dragon Ball storytelling, but the fact both honour what Toriyama wrote up to that point is what matters.

We can also credit Toriyama for providing vague ideas or memos for the staff at TOEI Animation to use to develop their own plot points, such as the backstory of the Saiyans and the Tsufruians in Dragon Ball Z episode 20, which was obviously elaborated even further in GT. So while a lot of these plot points were not written fully by Toriyama the seeds were there for these stories to grow, and because liberties were not taken to the extent they were never something that would have happened in Toriyama's world they still feel like Dragon Ball.

For me the only way a story would not "feel like Dragon Ball" would be if it was written by someone who was clearly not good at whatever aspect of the series that they wanted to approach, and it felt forced. I wouldn't want someone bad at writing adventure to try recapture that feel of early Dragon Ball, for example. Obviously unlike these previous installments we no longer have Toriyama with us to give his blessing, so it's all up to the fan because Dragon Ball means different things to different people, but ideally new stories should prioritise what is probable within Toriyama's world over what the writer clearly wants to happen in the story, like if someone wrote a story where no matter how hard Goku trained Vegeta would always beat him to a pulp, which would be undeniable pandering to Vegeta fanboys. Equally had someone written a story purely to appease Toriyama while he was alive, trying far too hard to write like him wouldn't have been ideal either. The best approach would be somewhere in the middle.

It's also important for other writers to take into consideration Toriyama's quirks, for example the fact he likes to subvert expectations. In an interview for the Battle of Gods animanga Toriyama described himself as a "twisted guy" for taking the stereotypical image of a God of Destruction, reversing it and leaving nothing but his fearsomeness intact. Of course we know Yūsuke Watanabe's Beerus was more parasitic and Akira Toriyama's was more goofy, but it was that touch from the original creator the latter, along with Battle of Gods as a whole got that I think resonated with fans in a way the former wouldn't have. That's not to say only Toriyama could deconstruct and rebuild a character based on the concepts provided but for another writer to take this approach and try rewrite a character the same way Toriyama might have.

I do think other genres Toriyama hasn't explored, like romance, which you mentioned could work in Dragon Ball. A romantic comedy between Kuririn/Krillin and 18 could work if the writer made an attempt to emulate Toriyama's humour, as long as he/she has the comedic chops and how the characters are written in that story feels appropriate based on how Toriyama wrote them in the past. 18 falling crazily in love with Kuririn/Krillin from the get-go for instance wouldn't because that is neither what we saw in the original story or how it could have happened based on Toriyama's indications.

[JulieYBM]

That original 1984-1995 comic is always going to be there, so as a viewer and writer myself, I always want to see other creators given the space and opportunities to make works that excite them to create. I think that an original creator should push those other creators to take their ideas further. This is why I always liked how Piccolo just stays dead in Dragon Ball GT. I wanted more commitment to their ideas, and less trying to match the Toriyama status quo.

[AliTheZombie13]

So the questions are: Should any other writer insert those characteristics, even if they are good at serious and/or romantic stuff? If so, by how much can they do that before it is labeled "it's not Dragon Ball anymore"? If not, should the writer be limited by the original author's own qualities and weaknesses and shy away from any other aspect that the original author unintentionally¹ shied away from?

Videl and Gohan don't exist, I guess. And it was by far one of the most interesting aspects of the trainwreck that was the Boo Saga.
Just because Toriyama was bad at something, doesn't mean the rest of the writers should suck at it, too.
As long as they maintain a healthy balance, it should be fine.

Answering the other question, "What feels like 'True Dragon Ball'?"
Because if I had to answer honestly, the Z movies felt more true to Dragon Ball to me than Super ever did, and I don't even like them. The characters still acted like themselves and they respected the universe they hailed from, even if the timeline they're placed in is always nebulous. They didn't go inserting clumsy retcons into the lore like:

"Oh sure, Beerus totally existed before, and everyone knew him, and he was there, and he knew Freeza, and he gave orders to Freeza, and Freeza knew Majin Boo, and everybody knew each other, and he also trapped the Old Kaioshin in the Z Sword, and he destroyed Kaio's planet, and he humiliated Vegeta's father, and Vegeta knew him, and Shenron knew him, and Shenron was always so scared of him, remember when Shenron was goofy? And his life is linked to Kaioshin's, even though there were like 5 Kaioshins before, and there's also the old Kaioshin, and is his life linked to all of them or just one of them? And if not, then where are the other Gods of Destruction that were linked to them? And why the hell didn't he act during the Boo Saga? Because Kaioshin was scared of him??? I think the off chance of Kaioshin dying would motivate Beerus to wake his ass up and act. And am I supposed to believe all of this is actually set in the same universe????"

I guess it all boils down to how much you respect the story that was set before.

[tonysoprano300]

So the questions are: Should any other writer insert those characteristics, even if they are good at serious and/or romantic stuff? If so, by how much can they do that before it is labeled "it's not Dragon Ball anymore"? If not, should the writer be limited by the original author's own qualities and weaknesses and shy away from any other aspect that the original author unintentionally¹ shied away from?

Videl and Gohan don't exist, I guess. And it was by far one of the most interesting aspects of the trainwreck that was the Boo Saga.
Just because Toriyama was bad at something, doesn't mean the rest of the writers should suck at it, too.
As long as they maintain a healthy balance, it should be fine.

Answering the other question, "What feels like 'True Dragon Ball'?"
Because if I had to answer honestly, the Z movies felt more true to Dragon Ball to me than Super ever did, and I don't even like them. The characters still acted like themselves and they respected the universe they hailed from, even if the timeline they're placed in is always nebulous. They didn't go inserting clumsy retcons into the lore like:

"Oh sure, Beerus totally existed before, and everyone knew him, and he was there, and he knew Freeza, and he gave orders to Freeza, and Freeza knew Majin Boo, and everybody knew each other, and he also trapped the Old Kaioshin in the Z Sword, and he destroyed Kaio's planet, and he humiliated Vegeta's father, and Vegeta knew him, and Shenron knew him, and Shenron was always so scared of him, remember when Shenron was goofy? And his life is linked to Kaioshin's, even though there were like 5 Kaioshins before, and there's also the old Kaioshin, and is his life linked to all of them or just one of them? And if not, then where are the other Gods of Destruction that were linked to them? And why the hell didn't he act during the Boo Saga? Because Kaioshin was scared of him??? I think the off chance of Kaioshin dying would motivate Beerus to wake his ass up and act. And am I supposed to believe all of this is actually set in the same universe????"

I guess it all boils down to how much you respect the story that was set before.

With BOG, I was able to kind of ignore some of that stuff because I really felt that it was at least in service of moving the dragon ball universe in a forward direction. Unlike most DB movies, BOG did seem to have a vested interest in expanding the universe significantly, adding new elements of power for the characters to master and overall just rekindling the sense of wonder DB was kind of known for.

Not to say that the retcons were very well thought out or anything but at least it was in service of something.

But a lot of the subsequent material was just retcons for the sake of plot convenience, or to contrive some type of fan service interaction.

At this point I'm just hoping that whoever takes over DB is actually trying to give us original stories with original antagonists. I don’t need to see them fight Freeza again, I didn’t need to see them fight Broly or Cell/RR again. As much crap that I think we could give the original series, they were always giving us new stories and new antagonists. After BOG I really thought that’s what we were getting but then ROF happened…

[tonysoprano300]

That original 1984-1995 comic is always going to be there, so as a viewer and writer myself, I always want to see other creators given the space and opportunities to make works that excite them to create. I think that an original creator should push those other creators to take their ideas further. This is why I always liked how Piccolo just stays dead in Dragon Ball GT. I wanted more commitment to their ideas, and less trying to match the Toriyama status quo.

Absolutely, and in all honesty I do think Toriyama likely was the kind of guy who would encourage other writers to do creative stuff with the material. His love of the Bardock special seemed to suggest that at least.

[Grimlock]

As long as another writer is consistent with Toriyama's world and characters to the extent it feels organic I don't see an issue.

But at what point can we decide it doesn't feel organic anymore? For example, I draw the line at quantity. If we keep constantly getting serious stuff, then yeah, Dragon Ball kind of loses its identity. But this aspect should be more welcomed, as we do have evidences that it works.

I know that, at the end of the day, it will boil down to one's preferences, but that's exactly the tricky part, our preferences vary. So should or should not the writer try to appeal to one side? Or the other? Or even both? Should an attempt even be made given this situation?

That original 1984-1995 comic is always going to be there, so as a viewer and writer myself, I always want to see other creators given the space and opportunities to make works that excite them to create. I think that an original creator should push those other creators to take their ideas further. This is why I always liked how Piccolo just stays dead in Dragon Ball GT. I wanted more commitment to their ideas, and less trying to match the Toriyama status quo.

I'm of the exact same opinion. I don't think they should be in any way, form or shape limited. It's the same as putting barriers or locking in creativity. It's bad for everyone. But you gotta ask: how much freedom can they have? Is there such a thing as "gone too far"? Intentionally or not, it may be that for the person writing, what they are doing is consistent with the "original world", but it may strike differently for the viewer.

I know all of this is tricky to answer, but given the current situation, it's something we should start facing now.

Videl and Gohan don't exist, I guess. And it was by far one of the most interesting aspects of the trainwreck that was the Boo Saga.
Just because Toriyama was bad at something, doesn't mean the rest of the writers should suck at it, too.
As long as they maintain a healthy balance, it should be fine.

"Balance" is exactly the word I (try to!) live by. If they can somehow find a way to dose up adventure, fighting, light, serious and even romantic elements in one package, and maybe even a way for that to be constant, I don't think there will be anything to worry about.

Answering the other question, "What feels like 'True Dragon Ball'?"
Because if I had to answer honestly, the Z movies felt more true to Dragon Ball to me than Super ever did, and I don't even like them. The characters still acted like themselves and they respected the universe they hailed from, even if the timeline they're placed in is always nebulous. They didn't go inserting clumsy retcons into the lore like:

"Oh sure, Beerus totally existed before, and everyone knew him, and he was there, and he knew Freeza, and he gave orders to Freeza, and Freeza knew Majin Boo, and everybody knew each other, and he also trapped the Old Kaioshin in the Z Sword, and he destroyed Kaio's planet, and he humiliated Vegeta's father, and Vegeta knew him, and Shenron knew him, and Shenron was always so scared of him, remember when Shenron was goofy? And his life is linked to Kaioshin's, even though there were like 5 Kaioshins before, and there's also the old Kaioshin, and is his life linked to all of them or just one of them? And if not, then where are the other Gods of Destruction that were linked to them? And why the hell didn't he act during the Boo Saga? Because Kaioshin was scared of him??? I think the off chance of Kaioshin dying would motivate Beerus to wake his ass up and act. And am I supposed to believe all of this is actually set in the same universe????"

I guess it all boils down to how much you respect the story that was set before.

Don't forget it was Beerus who wiped out the dinosaurs... For some reason (yet there are still dinosaurs alive!).

But yeah, I actually never thought like that before. Even though the movies have their problems (which can be explained away with the existence of an alternate dimension), these retcons brought about by the more recent series kind of take it away from the worldbuilding already established.

Absolutely, and in all honesty I do think Toriyama likely was the kind of guy who would encourage other writers to do creative stuff with the material. His love of the Bardock special seemed to suggest that at least.

There are plenty of evidences of that. Toriyama always supported others to do their own thing, you can find more by reading the interviews.