That Screen Rant Article Comparing Boruto to Dragon Ball Super Is... Something...
When Your Clickbait Title Has Nothing to Do With Your Actual Point
So Screen Rant dropped an article with the title “Boruto Is Straight Up Better Than Dragon Ball Super” and — look, I get it. I understand how the game works. You need clicks, you need engagement, you need people to share your article in Discord servers going “can you BELIEVE this?”
Mission accomplished, I guess. Here I am, writing about it.
But here’s the thing that’s been bothering me since I read it: the title and the actual content of the article are barely related. Like, they’re in the same general neighborhood, sure, but one of them is making a sweeping unilateral statement about quality while the other is making a pretty narrow (and honestly kinda fair) observation about one specific thing.
Let me break this down.
What The Article Actually Says
The core premise — and this is me being charitable here — is that both Boruto and Dragon Ball Super are legacy sequels to major franchises, but only one of them consistently passes the baton to the next generation.
Okay. Fair. That’s... actually an observation?
The article points out that Super continues to center major conflicts around Goku and Vegeta. That newer fighters like Goten and Trunks remain fusion-dependent and underdeveloped. That even the Superhero movie’s focus on Gohan feels like an exception rather than a sustained shift.
Meanwhile, Boruto (they argue) deliberately passes the torch — Boruto, Sarada, Mitsuki, and Kawaki drive the story while Naruto and Sasuke act as supporters rather than replacements for the protagonist role.
And like... yeah? I don’t disagree with that observation. That’s a thing that’s happening. You’ve correctly identified a difference between two shows.
But here’s where I start getting annoyed.
The Title Says “Straight Up Better”
One element.
You have one element here — “passing the baton to the next generation” — and you’ve made the leap to “straight up better.”
That’s... that’s not how comparisons work? Like, I can acknowledge that a Honda Civic has better gas mileage than a sports car without claiming the Civic is “straight up better.” They’re doing different things. They have different purposes.
And more importantly — and this is the part that really bugs me — Dragon Ball Super isn’t even trying to pass the baton.
Super Isn’t A Successor Series
This is the part that makes the entire comparison fall apart for me.
Dragon Ball Super is not the “next generation” of Dragon Ball. It’s not meant to be what comes after the story ends. It’s filling in the gap.
Remember the end of Z? The tournament where Goku meets Uub and flies off to train him? That happens after a time skip from the Buu Saga. Super is filling that time skip. We haven’t even caught up to the end of Z yet.
So comparing Super’s handling of generational succession to Boruto’s is like... criticizing a prequel for not introducing new characters who take over? The timeline doesn’t allow for it yet.
Now, if you wanted to compare Boruto to Dragon Ball GT — a series that actually was supposed to be the next chapter after Z — then at least your argument would be applicable. GT was trying to do the successor thing (and honestly fumbled it pretty hard, but that’s a whole other rant involving why they thought making Kid Trunks act like Future Trunks made any sense when those are fundamentally different people shaped by completely different life experiences, and also why didn’t they just make it a family adventure with Gohan and Pan instead of—)
Sorry. Getting sidetracked. Point is: GT would be a valid comparison. Super isn’t.
The Clickbait Problem
Look, I’m not naive. I understand why titles like this exist. Rage bait works. Clearly it works — I wouldn’t be sitting here writing a whole response piece if it didn’t grab my attention.
But there’s a cost to this stuff.
When you make sweeping statements like “[Thing A] is straight up better than [Thing B]” and then your actual argument is about one narrow element that isn’t even an apples-to-apples comparison... you’re poisoning the well.
You’re training readers to expect that “better than” claims are going to be hollow. You’re making it harder for genuine comparative analysis to be taken seriously. And honestly?
You’re disrespecting your own argument.
The observation about generational succession is fine. It’s a valid point! If the title had been something like “How Boruto Succeeds at Passing the Torch Where Dragon Ball Struggles” — that’s still engaging, still clickable, and actually reflects what you wrote.
But “straight up better”? Based on one metric that doesn’t even apply equally to both series?
Come on.
A Quick Reality Check
Here’s something I’d genuinely love to see data on:
If you put Boruto and Dragon Ball Super on a tier list and asked fans of both franchises to rank them — how many people are putting Boruto above Super?
Because I’ll be honest, from what I’ve seen, a lot of Naruto fans are... not thrilled with Boruto. Like, maybe things have changed and I missed the memo, but the general sentiment for a long time was disappointment. Meanwhile, Super — for all its issues — has had some genuinely hype moments that got the community excited.
I’m not saying one is objectively better than the other. I don’t even think that’s a useful statement to make. But if we’re playing the “straight up better” game, I’m skeptical that the general consensus lands where this article implies.
What I Actually Wanted From This Article
If you’re going to make the “X is straight up better than Y” claim — and look, I understand the temptation, bold statements get attention — then give me the full argument.
Give me multiple reasons. Give me a detailed breakdown. Give me something I can actually engage with beyond “one series does this one thing that the other series isn’t even trying to do.”
Because right now, the value of this opinion just... fizzles. It’s a title in search of an article, not an article earning its title.
And that’s frustrating, because there is an interesting conversation to be had here about legacy sequels, generational handoffs, and how different franchises handle succession. The Big Three (One Piece, Bleach, Naruto) all did this differently than Dragon Ball. The next generation of shonen (My Hero, Black Clover, JJK) learned even more lessons about supporting character development. There’s genuinely interesting comparative analysis to do.
But “Boruto is straight up better” ain’t it.
In Conclusion
The article isn’t wrong about its central observation. Boruto does prioritize generational succession more than Super does. That’s true.
But the title is disingenuous because:
“Straight up better” implies a comprehensive comparison, not a single metric
The comparison isn’t even applicable because Super isn’t a successor series — it’s filling a timeline gap
If you wanted to make this argument, GT would be the appropriate comparison, not Super
And honestly? You could have still had your clickbait title while actually making it about your argument. “Why Dragon Ball Keeps Failing to Pass the Torch” or “The One Thing Boruto Gets Right That Dragon Ball Can’t Figure Out” — still provocative, still clickable, but actually connected to what you wrote.
Just... make the title about the article. That’s all I’m asking.
(I know that’s not how the game works. I know. I’m just tired.)
Anyway, that’s me rambling about clickbait for way longer than I should have. The Screen Rant article did its job — got my attention, got my engagement, got me writing a whole response. Mission accomplished for them, I guess.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it.