Film Dragon Ball Evolution Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

09:45:30 AM Jan 16th 2014
This film is apparently not Dragon Ball In Name Only.

I disagree, The only relation it has to the Dragon Ball manga are the character names (and for some of the characterization), No Krillin, no Pilaf(at least represented by Mai). the plot —and heck, setting, Highs Chool AU aside— is vastly different, the worldbuilding is so derivative (kamehameha does not work that way), and combat is highly compressed (it was a martial arts manga after all so battles went on for episodes, and there were no school bullies). No Red Ribbon Army. there is Zero Journey to the West elements. I could go on.

if it's not In Name Only tell me how it counts as Continuity Reboot when there's very little carried over elements in it? sure you could argue "just look at the shoutouts!" but shoutouts don't equal non-derivativeness. want something not In Name Only? look at Rurouni Kenshin. as the page says, it's the first 12 episodes condensed into two hours.

on Continuity Reboot, you'd have to have similar enough elements to call it that. like Origin Story true to the original, or at least has enough elements of it, like say in Dm C Devil May Cry, which counts due to the half demon born of a demon hero thing despite its rather preachy Big Brother plot.
11:19:10 AM Jan 16th 2014
It still follows the basic plotline of the anime. Just because it didn't include all the things you think it should have doesn't make it In Name Only.
11:27:30 AM Jan 16th 2014
^ What basic plotline do you speak of? also, wouldn't following the basic plotline require being as true to the source as possible as well?
11:34:38 AM Jan 16th 2014
Things they share: The most basic plot: Goku and Master Roshi fight Piccolo. Bulma, Yamcha, and Chichi exist and sorta help. Roshi dies, but gets wished back.

The setting is completely different obviously, the characters (other than Roshi and maaaaaaaybe Piccolo) are definitely In Name Only in terms of characterization and motive. The backstory is also really different, with Goku being Piccolo's servant or... something.

Honestly, what I consider really telling is the Shout-Out listing on the page... the work is different enough that the page considers it notable that "something actually happens the matched the original." Then again, all of those should be under Mythology Gag, not Shout-Out anyway so clearly it's not a great list. Not to mention the basic elements that they share are, by and large, pretty damn generic. Change the names, replace the Dragon Balls with gems, and color Piccolo purple and I'd believe this had nothing to do with Dragon Ball.

Honestly, I think part of the issue is what it really means to be In Name Only. The two of them definitely have more in common the description implies is necessary to be In Name Only, but they've got less in common than some of the examples.
12:28:34 PM Jan 16th 2014
That "something actually happens the matched the original" is considered notable is in direct response to the They Changed It, Now It Sucks crowd painting the movie as In Name Only, not a result of it actually being In Name Only. My feeling is that the accusations of In Name Only stem more from people wanting to bash the film than it does with actually fitting the trope.

And no, following the basic plotline does not require being completely true to the source. Any adaptation is going to change, combine, or divide things. Nobody's calling The Hobbit In Name Only because of the huge changes its made.
07:05:07 AM Jan 17th 2014
Well, that's certainly "share" enough. I take your case that it is indeed not In Name Only. your "color Piccolo purple" got me. damn Barney-color-scheme wearing idiot...

but if this is not In Name Only, then what is it? Can't be Continuity Reboot, can it?

Mr Death
The page itself claims that In Name Only is not necessarily bad, so in it's core, INO simply means "This story is supposed to be X but is too derivative to be X".

They Changed It, Now It Sucks is certainly an element, but it's distinct, it's an audience reaction, thus, subjective. In Name Only is something one can actually prove by checking out the original and derivative work, thus, it's objective.
07:59:24 AM Jan 17th 2014
In itself, no. But its use on this is definitely someone trying to find yet another way to bash the movie. The end note that "it has to be seen to be believed" sure as shit isn't neutral.
08:04:13 AM Jan 17th 2014
edited by
then just remove that part. his cited reasons are otherwise, accurate anyway.
08:55:58 AM Jan 22nd 2014
About the objective thing... this needs a well-defined line where a work changes of non- In Name Only to In Name Only . Otherwise, the persons are likely to put the line in any point.
Collapse/Expand Topics