• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Dragon Ball Super - Broly and Gogeta Justification Addition

Status
Not open for further replies.
With this logic a push for Kai being Canon to Super could be justified because SUCH & SUCH scenes that are clear references to the anime only. (Gregory/Buu Arc Flashbacks/ History of Trunks references)
This would be the case if not for explicit statements that Super was a continuation of the original manga.

See, that is the deal breaker here. There are explicit statements confirming that the Super anime is a branch off of the original manga, and there are explicit statements confirming that Broly is a branch off of the Super anime rather than the manga. The Super anime reanimating scenes from the "History of Trunks" TV special into a tiny flashback is not quite comparable to Super Hero completely disregarding the characterization of Gohan presented in the manga or the characters suddenly forgetting that Piccolo had a giant form, despite seeing him use him during the battle with Moro...

...unless-
 
Is the feat even Low 2-C? Since there isn't something that suggests that the dimension they destroyed was a universal sized spacetime
 
Por que qualquer um deles seria considerado canônico para o mangá? O primeiro está em uma continuidade própria, desconsiderado completamente com a chegada de Dragon Ball Super e deixado para apodrecer na obscuridade, e o último é explicitamente declarado em várias ocasiões como uma extensão da história do anime.

O mangá que faz referência a Broly não é prova de que o filme, um para um, também é cânone para a continuidade do mangá.
the manga explicitly leaves that the film is canonical for the manga, so much so that in the moro saga it even shows a scene of king vegeta and bardock, something from the film. There's no point in not considering it, when the manga points everything to that yes, the only one that is Incoherent is the super hero, but dbs broly has no inconsistency and quite the opposite, There are several points that point to it being canonical. You have that in the manga the fight of gogeta and broly happened, you have the events of bardock and king vegeta being mentioned, so there are several points that corroborate with being canonical.
 
there are several points that corroborate with being canonical.
Is the validity of the novel one of these points? What about the dimension of swirling lights? A brief mention is all that is required to slot the entire movie into the continuity of the manga, including its light novel adaptation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sus
A validade do romance é um desses pontos? E quanto à dimensão das luzes giratórias? Uma breve adaptação dos homens é tudo o que é necessário encaixar o filme inteiro na adaptação do mangá, incluindo em light novel?
EI was just talking about the movie. But about the novel I think it can make sense too, since it's a complement to the movie that just details things and doesn't bring any inconsistency. There's also the fact that it's approved by Akira toryama so maybe it can help with that.
 
I̶̶̶ ̶̶̶m̶̶̶e̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶f̶̶̶ ̶̶̶s̶̶̶o̶̶̶m̶̶̶e̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶a̶̶̶l̶̶̶l̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶w̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶̶̶o̶̶̶ ̶̶̶b̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶̶̶̶t̶̶̶h̶̶̶a̶̶̶t̶̶̶̶̶̶ ̶̶̶g̶̶̶u̶̶̶y̶̶̶,̶̶̶ ̶̶̶V̶̶̶e̶̶̶g̶̶̶e̶̶̶t̶̶̶a̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶̶̶G̶̶̶o̶̶̶k̶̶̶u̶̶̶ ̶̶̶n̶̶̶e̶̶̶v̶̶̶e̶̶̶r̶̶̶ ̶̶̶f̶̶̶o̶̶̶u̶̶̶g̶̶̶h̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶̶̶B̶̶̶r̶̶̶o̶̶̶l̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶o̶̶̶g̶̶̶e̶̶̶t̶̶̶h̶̶̶e̶̶̶r̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶h̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶g̶̶̶i̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶̶̶s̶̶̶h̶̶̶o̶̶̶w̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶h̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶m̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶g̶̶̶a̶̶̶,̶ ̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶l̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶f̶̶̶t̶̶̶e̶̶̶r̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶̶̶h̶̶̶a̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶̶̶b̶̶̶e̶̶̶e̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶u̶̶̶r̶̶̶n̶̶̶e̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶o̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶l̶̶̶a̶̶̶v̶̶̶a̶̶̶
 
Well, the scene in the movie was pretty clear that it was another dimension and not just visual effects and pow, even more so with the novel complementing that they were dimensions too.
If it's explicitly that then it should warrant something, I was just saying it wasn't the impression I got because one second Vampa the next second "Dimensional Battleground".
 
Well, the scene in the movie was pretty clear that it was another dimension and not just visual effects and pow, even more so with the novel complementing that they were dimensions too.
There are not "vissual efects" in DB since the first part of the manga, in the last movie is even exposed the "comic effects" as mere holograms (so even the visual effects on the first part of the manga have some mysterious canon explanation).
 
oh, extra goofy today, eh?
Nah, I just want to be logically consistant, and the idea of trully "breaking the fourth wall" and the idea of true "plot holes" are just wrong 'cause we, as readers made something called "willing suspension of disbelief", if you think something in a novel is a "plot hole", you're not being audience of fiction, you're analysing the logic of a plot, when we are audience of a fictional work, we don't even thing in terms of "plot", we believe that the story is true to itself. So, when something apparently makes no sense in a story, we need to understand that somewhat it makes sense (even if we can't get to the explanation), JUST AS WE THINK CHARACTERS "STILL LIVE" WHEN THEY ARE OFF-SCREEN! If you believe there is a plot hole, you can't, at the same time, believe characters still "live" off-screen, so you're using a double standard of analysis, you're not being honest with it and you're not reading the novel as audience of fiction!
Understand something in a story as a plot hole, or believe characters continue their "lives", choose one or be logically inconsitant.
The worst thing, is that most supposed "plot holes" are actually EVIDENTLY explained in the stories (unless we talk about trully trash writting), you just need to understand it better, there is no EVIDENT (apparent) contradiction at all (again, unless we talk about trash writting).
 
oh, extra goofy today, eh?
If we see (and confirm) in our world something that makes no sense to our best scientific theory, we don't think that the world is wrong, we just understand our best theory is wrong (but less wrong that less "right" theories). Because of the willing suspension of disbelief, we have to think the same when we think about fiction. Currently, our best scientific theories (QFT and GR) expose things like "locality", the "passing of time" and even matter and forms as "apparent" or "emergent", and people like David Hume exposed that even the idea of causality is wrong (which evidently makes sense to GR, being that theory an eternalist one). We just don't truly understan the world, and again, because the willing suspension of disbelief, we must thing the same to fiction while we're audience. We don't truly understand any verse, we just have theories (and their respective models) about those "worlds", just as we do with the "real world".
 
So are you all scaling the Dragon Ball Super manga from a novel description, and if so, how do you know that both of them follow the exact same canon?
So about this...

Also, what are the conclusions here so far?
 
Again, from where did Low 2-C come from?
632.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top