Marlowe89 wrote:That was not a tangent. That was a very brief example (out of many) to illustrate why the Androids' self-destruction bombs are narratively tied to the Androids' self-destruction.
And my point was that your point had nothing to do with my original comment being that the story never implies #17 still had the bomb inside of him and that #17, being a mostly human composed cyborg, can still still utilize Ki and create Ki based self-destruction technique like we see in the original story and other Dragon Ball material.
Marlowe89 wrote:These are tangents and whataboutisms
I only made that point about Cell in response to the statement you originally made about Cell had a excuse for coming back to life after he self-destructed. And my response was that his excuse made no goddamn sense, flew in face of logic and continuity, and in retrospect, the explanation created more problems than it solved. That wasn't a tangent and/or whataboutism. It's a response to an off-hand comment you made.
And, yeah, characters self destruct and can survive. Again, not a tangents and/or whataboutism because we see this happen in Dragon Ball.
Marlowe89 wrote:They're irrelevant because I'm specifically talking about characters blowing themselves up (how much more literally can I phrase this?) and physically remaining in one piece immediately afterwards, something I've repeatedly made clear throughout our discussion, not... "miraculously surviving death's door" or whatever the hell you've been babbling about. My point is that it's badly written, it's irrationally asinine beyond all human comprehension, and yes, it's a Toei invention.
My point is that Toriyama gave the context of "a character who should be dead and later turns out to be actually no dead later on" and that Toei simply applies that already broken and stupid logic in a scenario where character's self-destruct. I'm saying this to justify the scene as something logical or entirely coherent. The crux of my argument is that Dragon Ball does unbelievable shit to move forward the plot the scenario with #17 was one of those cases.
I made the case that:
a. Toriyama has given the context that Dragon Ball's plot can move forward even with the dubious scenario where a character is killed and but can later be revealed to be alive
b. Dragon Ball has shown that characters can survive their own self destruction techniques in illogical manners
c. Dragon Ball, in general, does not conform to real life logic
I'm well aware that #17's case in the Super anime is quite unique. I'm just making the point that such a moment happening in Dragon Ball has foundation. That is not to infer that the moment in particular is wholly consistent with Toriyama's story. But I'm merely making the statement that, with the nature of Dragon Ball's writing, #17 surviving his own self-destruction is not out of norm with how characters can cheat death in the most egregious manner.
Again, this is not to say that this a perfectly okay thing to happen in any fashion. Toei just built that moment off of a logically very faulty foundation, and they are culpable for making that creative decision. But they are not at fault for suddenly deciding that they can be a scenario in the narrative of Dragon Ball where are character who should be dead, turns out to not be dead. They used and exploited that scenario in the plot, and combined it with the fact that some characters can survive self-destructing in the most dubious nature possible (as mentioned with Cell) and abused Dragon Ball's general nonsensical nature to have a (another) moment where a character self-destructs but survives.
Marlowe89 wrote:It's also an absurd misrepresentation of my point, like I just told you before. I never made that claim and you're putting words in my mouth, so maybe you should read my posts more carefully before replying. I shouldn't have to keep exhaustively clarifying things like this because you skimmed over a sentence you didn't pay attention to.
The point is that 17 couldn't have imitated a technique he wasn't exposed to, and he couldn't have learned a technique from someone he never trained under. As Herms clarified in a previous link in this thread, what 17 did and what Vegeta did are described as two entirely separate moves. You can always argue that 17 invented his own self-destruction move, but again, that's engaging in headcanon at the expense of the story's allusions. It's not TECHNICALLY a plot hole, but it's not a particularly good way of ironing out the scriptwriting staff's lack of coherency either.
Also, stop acting as if I'm claiming that the original manga is devoid of any internal problems. That's a fairly irritating strawman argument. We're talking about Super.
You said:
Vegeta's self-destruction technique is specific to Vegeta. If it wasn't, the (select few) other characters capable of blowing themselves up wouldn't have used completely different moves, some of which aren't even directly ki-based, to facilitate the same result.
My response was that the story never indicated that the ability was handcuffed to Vegeta. It was just simply an ability that Vegeta could use. idea's aren't exclusive in Dragon Ball. Some people can have the ingenuity to create create something similar to something that already exists if they have no knowledge of it. We see how #17 took a barrier technique and made it incredibly versatile (in the anime). What is stopping him from taking that versatility and applying to create new attack? Nothing.
The creativity when it comes to Ki based attacks in endless and unrestricted and truly comes down to whether the user has the skill to do the shit he/she wants to do. Exposure isn't mandatory. Creativity can be spontaneous. You coming to the conclusion that #17 inventing his own self-destruction technique as "headcanon" is ridiculous and works against the nature of how Dragon Ball is a story where the possibilities of Ki techniques are practically limitless and unbounded. With your rationale, you're basically questioning the logistics of how Freeza can shoots laser from his eyes despite not seeing King Piccolo or Tenshinhan do it. Or how #18 was able to use the Kienzan despite Toriyama never providing any context of her witnessing the ability or her training with Krillin prior to her displaying the technique in the 25th WMAT.
What we know about Vegeta's Final Explosion technique is that he generates enough Ki from within him to produce an immense shockwave of energy that destroys everything it covers in a vast area. Do we see something similar to this prior to Vegeta displaying that technique? Yes. Do we see something similar to this after Vegeta displays that technique? Yes. And that's all you need to know.
And I've never even insinuated that you are claiming the original manga that isn't devoid of internal problems. I've only merely pointing out the continuity issues of Cell explanation for how he survived blowing himself (a comment
you originally made). I'm not trying to project this image of your personal self as a person who ignore issues with Toriyama's storytelling. I'm just laying out the issues in support of my argument. I'm not saying or implying that you aren't aware of them. How you came to that conclusion is quite bizarre.
