• 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.

Uncompositing the Dragon Ball Cosmology

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is how he refers to himself here.
He refers to himself as nothing more than an audience members for these movies. Damage is correct
Nah I'm sorry but neither of you are correct on this matter. Doesn't matter what he's referring to himself as when he literally has the authority to determine the canonicity of this stuff. I wouldn't consider this a good argument at all
 
He refers to himself as nothing more than an audience members for these movies. Damage is correct
That doesn't matter. It's still completely within his right to canonize them to the manga. Also, calling himself an audience member is unironically just him being humble to the scriptwriters, since they do most of the work. He still has actual involvement, he's not even a typical audience member. Though that's irrelevant to the main point here.
 
He refers to himself as nothing more than an audience members for these movies. Damage is correct
Damage is not correct, like @SSJGeminiJJ said, he is an audience member in reference to his actual involvement with the writing of the story, you can't just completely blow over that, he straight up says they are alternate worlds, and would this not line up with GT being mentioned in slump which is canon to DB? Hard disagree.
 
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.
Not that the "side stories" take place in the same fictional universe? In this case, Toriyama clearly refers to those side stories as parallel worlds.
I think we should define the term "side story".
 
This is exactly what I mean when I say at some point, we're just gonna start saying nothing is enough, save for us literally being spoonfed this info as if we can't simply extrapolate it. I am not a fan of what I consider to be scrutiny for the sake of scrutiny
Yep if literally everything needs to be stated this community has no reason for existence. This hobby lives and dies on interpretation of statements and requiring specific evidence just kills it. It's not even about DB even though I'm a supporter on it. In another thread a glass panel in a heavily guarded place needed specific examples to be ballistic despite being pretty evidently one. There comes a point where nothing except the simplest most obvious statements are accepted and by then what do we do except just cataloguing them.
 
The argument that we should accept it without evidence is pretty silly and doesn't even work in the context of this argument.

If we are to assume without evidence that the phrase "side story" implies a shared cosmology, how do we rebut assuming that "side story" implies the lack of a shared cosmology? We need information that discriminates between these two possibilities and none has been provided.

It's not "scrutiny for the sake of scrutiny." You are also scrutinizing the conclusion that they lack a shared cosmology, are you doing that just for the sake of scrutiny?
 
The argument that we should accept it without evidence is pretty silly and doesn't even work in the context of this argument.

If we are to assume without evidence that the phrase "side story" implies a shared cosmology, how do we rebut assuming that "side story" implies the lack of a shared cosmology? We need information that discriminates between these two possibilities and none has been provided.

It's not "scrutiny for the sake of scrutiny." You are also scrutinizing the conclusion that they lack a shared cosmology, are you doing that just for the sake of scrutiny?
Toriyama IS the evidence, he is the author, and that is how he treats them, plain and simple, what more evidence do you need? Does toriyama need to personally hand mail you letter a that says they are in a different dimension? In the context of his interview, that is clearly how he wants to treat these "side stories". And what evidence is there that the cosmologies are different? Even in a guide book, the suguroku space is also mentioned, which is something that was introduced in GT.
image.png
 
Toriyama IS the evidence, he is the author, and that is how he treats them, plain and simple, what more evidence do you need?
Nothing Toriyama said indicates a shared cosmology. All he said is that they're side stories or stories from another dimension.
And what evidence is there that the cosmologies are different?
The very purpose for arguing for a shared cosmology is to include statements from non canon works to upgrade the cosmology beyond what can be achieved just from canon works. Those discrepancies are de facto evidence against them being the same, but I don't really need to prove they're different, you need actual evidence and so far we have assumptions and nothing else.
 
Nothing Toriyama said indicates a shared cosmology. All he said is that they're side stories or stories from another dimension.

The very purpose for arguing for a shared cosmology is to include statements from non canon works to upgrade the cosmology beyond what can be achieved just from canon works. Those discrepancies are de facto evidence against them being the same, but I don't really need to prove they're different, you need actual evidence and so far we have assumptions and nothing else.
occam's razor yadiyadiyada about how it's more likely that they share the same cosmology than that they don't
 
I'm confused here, is their any reason to think they don't share a cosmology? Considering many things in the cosmology are the same, it's supposed to be a side story taking place after the events of Dragon Ball (I could go on). Would the natural assumption not be to think that they do share a cosmology and if not why so?
 
I'm confused here, is their any reason to think they don't share a cosmology? Considering many things in the cosmology are the same, it's supposed to be a side story taking place after the events of Dragon Ball (I could go on). Would the natural assumption not be to think that they do share a cosmology and if not why so?
Of course they would have similarities since in the end it's dragon ball and sticks to the same core idea.... Being a side story doesn't really mean much for a shared cosmology as anything from a non-canon spin off is a side story.
 
Of course they would have similarities since in the end it's dragon ball and sticks to the same core idea.... Being a side story doesn't really mean much for a shared cosmology as anything from a non-canon spin off is a side story.
Ok but you literally agree that as something from Dragon Ball it'd have similarities. So once again I ask, what is the argument against it being the same cosmology?
 
Last edited:
Of course they would have similarities since in the end it's dragon ball and sticks to the same core idea.... Being a side story doesn't really mean much for a shared cosmology as anything from a non-canon spin off is a side story.
even in the toriyama comment, he says that GT is a grand side story to the original Dragon Ball. It points to sharing the same cosmology.
 
Of course they would have similarities since in the end it's dragon ball and sticks to the same core idea.... Being a side story doesn't really mean much for a shared cosmology as anything from a non-canon spin off is a side story.
But it's still treated as an alternate timeline, and nothing contradicts them having the same cosmology.
 
It should be the same regardless, since any Anime original content is already officially said to be done with an understanding of the DB world in mind, and made to be in coherence with it as though they could've happened in the manga.
44cfa1d3042420e74ebb972c33359292.png
Sticking true to dragon balls roots is not proof for a shared cosmology this is just them explaining on how they made filler that would fit into the dragon ball story.
 
whats the evidence they aren't? Is it, "toriyama is headcanon"?
Toriyama said the movies were a different dimension to the manga but even then the way he phrased it made it an uncertainty.
Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements from them that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera.
 
Toriyama said the movies were a different dimension to the manga but even then the way he phrased it made it an uncertainty.
Uncertainty? Mf he straight up said it, theres no "possibly" its just a fact. This is supported by dr slump which is, you guessed it, written by TORIYAMA.
 
Ok that's fair. I'll remove that from my post. Can you answer my question though?
The argument is that it hinges on it being called a "side story" which is the equivalent of saying it's a spin off or derivative (which doesn't automatically make something in same cosmology) and a literal one off reference with little to no elaboration on any cosmology (argument for the cosmology which points I addressed)
 
Still waiting for a response to this from anyone, Idrc who.
Similarities =/= identical cosmology. The very concept of them being non canon means they contradict the main series. There's no reason to assume that cosmology is an exception to those contradictions.
 
The argument is that it hinges on it being called a "side story" which is the equivalent of saying it's a spin off or derivative (which doesn't automatically make something in same cosmology) and a literal one off reference with little to no elaboration on any cosmology.
That doesn't answer my question. I'm not looking for you to disprove the argument FOR it being the same cosmology. I'm looking for you to prove the argument AGAINST it being the same.
 
Well I guess I’m back from my VSBW break

This scan from the daizenshuu literally tells us it’s a future world and alternate history in relation to the Anime and Original Work (Manga) I don’t understand how Future World and Alternate History being used isn’t sufficient for an alternate timeline



this along with the other statements

Some of the movies are even called parallel worlds (which are what timelines are literally called) and different worlds which matches up with what’s said on the toei website and with what Toriyama said Arale being aware of the existence of GT is also proof of that

This post from Pineapple shows us timelines being called different worlds, parallel worlds, and different histories.


9d8f4e51c7aa1d9fd45544ee9aa39a733d98f6ca.jpg
1e520562de9594fa615f543d735ce2825f40636br1-630-630v2_hq.jpg
Screenshot_61.png

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top