- 12,451
- 4,476
considering how the other 6 cosmology crts about this topic went, i strongly recomend you to do thatIf things get too out of hand I might request for this to be a staff thread due it being a controversial and possibly drastic change.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
considering how the other 6 cosmology crts about this topic went, i strongly recomend you to do thatIf things get too out of hand I might request for this to be a staff thread due it being a controversial and possibly drastic change.
i agree with the op thoI think at most it would make BoG canon to gt, weirdly
already dealt with in another thread of mine, that was rejected as proof since it showing dbgt as being in the same timeline as the future of dbs, which is contradictory for so many reasons, so don't use thatNo it isn't, even shuiesha recognizes it as an alternate timeline within the canon series.
i don't see why toryama's statements about the movies would matter when he himself said that he has no autority about them whatsoever, and that he is but an audience member to them, gt i am neutral however
Sinec the author describes non canon work (GT/movies) as parallel worlds, and we learn that these parallel worlds exist in Super and follow the many worlds interpretation, there is no reason for a composite cosmology to not exist and so I disagree with the OP.
Those are parallel worlds created via Time Travel. Why would GT or the movies be the same as that?Sinec the author describes non canon work (GT/movies) as parallel worlds, and we learn that these parallel worlds exist in Super and follow the many worlds interpretation, there is no reason for a composite cosmology to not exist and so I disagree with the OP.
Wouldn’t you have to show that they are worlds created by time travel then?
Sinec the author describes non canon work (GT/movies) as parallel worlds, and we learn that these parallel worlds exist in Super and follow the many worlds interpretation, there is no reason for a composite cosmology to not exist and so I disagree with the OP.
Those are parallel worlds created via Time Travel. Why would GT or the movies be the same as that?
Please read the very end of this.
Okay... And how do we know that GT is one of those canon parallel worlds? Why can't it be a non-canon parallel world?Please read the very end of this scan.
Under the Many worlds interpretation which the verse seems to operate under, there is no 'non-canon parallel world'. The possibilities are endless as written in the verse page, and the same goes for the movies.Okay... And how do we know that GT is one of those canon parallel worlds? Why can't it be a non-canon parallel world?
tbh, couldn't that be just a 4th wall break gag moment?But you could still use Arale as a solid and undeniable link, I guess
This scan's talking about timelines, not different continuities.First off the scan here isn't talking about a literal parallel timeline shared between continuities but rather in a meta way referring to them more so as different mediums or stories with different events than the TV series or manga.
"Different history" isn't referring to different continuity, as far that goes History of Trunks is part of the Z Anime's continuityThis depicts a story from the future world where the teenage Trunks is from. In brief, it is an event from a different history than the one advanced in the original work or TV series.
I disagree with this.This suffers from the same problem as above as it's literally referring to it in an outside or meta sense not as a literal alternate timeline within the verse.
I don't think it would make any sense for them to put Dragon Ball GT after Dragon Ball Super if it was a celebration of the franchise. Why wouldn't they put it in order from oldest to newest? It makes no sense. There's also the fact that they make an effort to include events from the franchise with in-universe dates like a timeline. If its a celebration, it would make a lot more sense to put the actual dates the events took place in.That's literally timeline map about the history of dragon ball. This is not recognition of a shared cosmology but the history of the dragon ball franchise. Unless you wanna say GT takes place within the same timeline as Super like the board would suggest despite that being riddled with plot holes and contradictions.
I don't think anyone is contesting the fact that they all have overlap. It's natural that they would, because they're within the same franchise (and by nature share a great deal of common elements). I think the issue is with assuming that any piece of cosmological information can be applied to every other work -- canon or not -- is not supported by any evidence.However, plenty of guides that talk about the structures of the Afterlife relative to the living world and RoSaT or Realm of the Kais, all of that has been pretty consistent that Toriyama has often tried to apply those to all versions of Dragon Ball; both original Manga and various adaptations.
I think the issue is with assuming that any piece of cosmological information can be applied to every other work -- canon or not -- is not supported by any evidence.
This is quite literally, all you need.
Sinec the author describes non canon work (GT/movies) as parallel worlds, and we learn that these parallel worlds exist in Super and follow the many worlds interpretation, there is no reason for a composite cosmology to not exist and so I disagree with the OP.
Nope, it isn't, because we would need concrete information to suggest this refers to GT.This is quite literally, all you need.
Again, many worlds implies the existence of an infinite amount of different timelines, one of which can be GT.Nope, it isn't, because we would need concrete information to suggest this refers to GT.
Emphasis on "can."one of which can be GT.
That evidence was already discussed above. The headline is, if that's all that we have then it isn't enough.Which is backed up by evidence from Toriyama interviews, Shueisha via adding it to the history of Dragon Ball, and Bird Studio via Arale.
By the way I'll plop this here, since it's pretty rare and I had never seen it before
I wouldn't have had to repeat it if you hadn't said that it wasn't supported by any evidence just earlier.Emphasis on "can."
That evidence was already discussed above. The headline is, if that's all that we have then it isn't enough.
I feel like I was pretty transparent about this in my first comment. But yes, essentially what it comes down do is that I do not believe the evidence referenced in the OP meaningfully contributes to the conclusion that GT shares a cosmology with DBS.You should have been more transparent and just said that you don't find evidence from the author, the license holders and the show to be enough for some reason.
Why do you think that all the evidence is lacking? What more do you think it needs for it to be satisfactory to you?I feel like I was pretty transparent about this in my first comment. But yes, essentially what it comes down do is that I do not believe the evidence referenced in the OP meaningfully contributes to the conclusion that GT shares a cosmology with DBS.
Wait, Toriyama himself saying that dbgt is a side story is not enough?Nope, it isn't, because we would need concrete information to suggest this refers to GT.
I really don't love the trend of being asked essentially to repeat something I already said because someone in the thread wants to continue arguing past the point of it being clear that we simply have a difference in perspective, but fine, I'll explain once again:Why do you think that all the evidence is lacking? What more do you think it needs for it to be satisfactory to you?
I take issue with this personally, I very much believe the info presented is enough for a shared cosmology and I feel like it's getting to the point where nothing will be enough, save for Toriyama stepping up and saying in bold font "Dragon Ball GT is a part of the Dragon Ball cosmology"Wait, Toriyama himself saying that dbgt is a side story is not enough?
Is there some rule I am unaware of where the term "side story" means "shares a cosmology with?" It'd still be a side story if it didn't share a cosmology, so this information has no relevance.Wait, Toriyama himself saying that dbgt is a side story is not enough?
An audience member's headcanon is not an official statement of canonicity here.
An audience member's headcanon is not an official statement of canonicity here.
Referring to the literal creator of the franchise
Referring to the literal creator of the franchise
crazyAn audience member's headcanon is not an official statement of canonicity here.
Whaattt him being an audience member just refers to his involvement in the writing, as even the OP makes note of, he's clearly referring to the manga's cosmology there "different dimension from the story of the comic".An audience member's headcanon is not an official statement of canonicity here.
Also how does what he said here mean they have a shared cosmologyI mean... from what we understand of Toriyama lingo, he seems to explicitly use the term "side-story" in the context of what he'd consider an alternate timeline.