Official On-Going Dragon Ball Super Movie #1 Thread: "Broly"

[BrolyKale]

How is hold Broly any good at all? All he does is scream shit and is angry because Goku cried beside them as kids. That's all there is to him. People have said that for years (me included) so it's not something that came about just because of this new movie.

You are literally doing the same thing all Broly haters do right now. You are reducing him to a caricature of what he was by only pointing out the most obvious thing of his second movie. "Being angry and screaming Kakarot". Broly is not close what people claim he is.

Fair enough, but what did he do in the first movie that was so good? He still screamed, he still said Kakarot, and he still went on a rampage against Goku because of Goku crying. It's still horribly bad.

He had PTSD and was used by his father. He talked properly when he is calm and he talks a lot once he transforms into the LSSJ.

[zarmack]

Toei's version still would have brought more tension and drama than the film we got. Also, Beerus wasn't said to have brainwash the Saiyans in this draft, only that he corrupted most of them. They would still have their free will and still would be responsible for what they did.

More like faux tension and drama because to have tension and drama you need to actually believe that the good guys can lose. It's basically the same thing since the 'corruption' was frame similarly to how Beerus was going to corrupt Goku's friends and family against him. Like no one in Dragon Ball Z or GT blamed the people who were corrupted by Garlic Jr or Baby for their actions.

The original Battle of Gods script was far safer than Toriyama's since Toriyama expanded the story while Toei was basically an one and done story with no real consequences afterwards like the other 13 movies they made.

How in the world is Beerus being an powerful evil deity out to destroy the universe and turning all of Goku's friends against him safer than the film we got? That doesn't make any sense. The original draft showcased are far more hopeless and tension-filled scenario for Goku than the film we actually got. Battle of Gods was too light-hearted and had little real tension compared to most of the 13 Z films, and Beerus himself was hardly an evil menace.

[PFM18]

If you don't believe that quality is objective then it makes no sense to call anything shitty or great. If quality is subjective then the Potaufeu & Black Star arcs (the most critically panned arcs in the franchise) aren't any better or worse than the Saiyan & Namek arcs (the most critically acclaimed ones).

That still doesn't make any sense. If quality is subjective it doesn't suddenly make everything the same in quality.

That first part is especially ridiculous. If you believe that something is subjective, it still makes sense to say something is shitty or great, literally the essence of subjectivity is that it depends on the person's opinion. In my opinion X is really good or Y is really shitty.

[Jaden]

I read the whole synopsis out of curiosity. To hell with them spoilers!

There's one thing that isn't mentioned there and that's the three saiyans' birth year.

Would someone be so kind as to tell a fellow their official/current/post-Broly-movie/retconned , whatever you wanna call it, ages?
Because to me it sounds like Vegeta is no longer 5 years older than Goku.

Would appreciate Goku, Vegeta and Broly's birth years (that is, of course, if the movie provides this information at all)

[IM21]

The official sub or Herms will clarify. However even with that statement it proves nothing.

agree. we don't know how strong Beerus really is. If you're looking at te manga he is clearly much stronger than SSJB Vegeta post Zamasu arc.

And also just a tiny bit stronger than the rest of the GoDs besides Belmod (not saying Belmod is stronger).

I don't really remember it, but was it said anywhere in the manga that Belmond is stronger than Beerus? All I remember is that Beerus lost an arm-wrestling match with Quitela, which also doesn't really mean anything. These two were also the last two fighters during the God match, which means they are probably top tier. We don't really know how good Belmond is, but he was faking that he was hurt. Anyhow, Beerus must be amazing just cause he fought multiple Gods at once.

[Miracles]

The official sub or Herms will clarify. However even with that statement it proves nothing.

agree. we don't know how strong Beerus really is. If you're looking at te manga he is clearly much stronger than SSJB Vegeta post Zamasu arc.

And also just a tiny bit stronger than the rest of the GoDs besides Belmod (not saying Belmod is stronger).

No disrespect. This too is headcannon. We don't know how much stronger Beerus is to other gods. Only official canonical source is that he and Quitela are close.

[HeroR]

He is not bad as a villain, not at all. Especially for a movie villain he had a big background, one of the best from the movies. First Broly was a well written villain, its not only about Goku crying as baby its more than that, the crying thing is metaphoric. Broly got nearly killed by King Vegeta as a baby and was thrown in the garbage. He was violent and had a hard time controlling himself, Paragus also used him for his own ambitions too. The second coming made him look more angrier and insane and that's all.

Broly even in the first movie never made sense. I just looked at my copy of the first movie and Broly recognized Goku by look. Like, how the hell does Broly remember what Goku looks like when they were both newborns and as far as I saw in the flashback, he never even laid eyes on Goku. So there was more than just 'Broly was just traumatized by Goku's crying because it reminded him being stabbed' since if this was PTSD, he would be triggered by Goku crying or something. Not him seeing Goku and then trying to murder him at night.

[HeroR]

How in the world is Beerus being an powerful evil deity out to destroy the universe and turning all of Goku's friends against him safer than the film we got? That doesn't make any sense. The original draft showcased are far more hopeless and tension-filled scenario for Goku than the film we actually got. Battle of Gods was too light-hearted and had little real tension compared to most of the 13 Z films, and Beerus himself was hardly an evil menace.

Unless Toei planned to do something long lasting with Beerus and his mind control plot, it wasn't going to go anywhere, just like Garlic Jr mind controlling everyone went no where. It would be as intense and as hopeless as the original Broly movie. Everyone gets beat up, Goku ass pull something, we all laughed at the end and this incident is never mentioned again.

[BrolyKale]

He is not bad as a villain, not at all. Especially for a movie villain he had a big background, one of the best from the movies. First Broly was a well written villain, its not only about Goku crying as baby its more than that, the crying thing is metaphoric. Broly got nearly killed by King Vegeta as a baby and was thrown in the garbage. He was violent and had a hard time controlling himself, Paragus also used him for his own ambitions too. The second coming made him look more angrier and insane and that's all.

Broly even in the first movie never made sense. I just looked at my copy of the first movie and Broly recognized Goku by look. Like, how the hell does Broly remember what Goku looks like when they were both newborns and as far as I saw in the flashback, he never even laid eyes on Goku. So there was more than just 'Broly was just traumatized by Goku's crying because it reminded him being stabbed' since if this was PTSD, he would be triggered by Goku crying or something. Not him seeing Goku and then trying to murder him at night.

There's a good explanation to that here https://docs.google.com/document/d/15jD ... CkDt0/edit you need to read everything carefully, it's rereboy's interpretation and it's the only logical interpretation I've seen so far. I think Broly has PTSD only in the second coming.

[zarmack]

Quality just without context cannot be objective. He is right. You need to establish a certain standard that people agree upon under which they evaluate. In that relation things can be objective. But there is no universal law that people need to follow that standard and more importantly, the standard does not even exist without people establishing it. Quality is no natural fact. And yes, I can establish a standard under with your Godfather movie and whatever you mentioned before can be equally good.

This is a relativist fallacy. Science is rapidly reaching the conclusion that quality/beauty is an objective and measurable thing like weight and height. Just because people have different tastes and preferences doesn't mean there is no objective quality independent of them. Like how just because people believe different things about a topic (like the shape of the Earth) doesn't mean there are no objective facts about it.

[HeroR]

There's a good explanation to that here https://docs.google.com/document/d/15jD ... CkDt0/edit you need to read everything carefully, it's rereboy's interpretation and it's the only logical interpretation I've seen so far.

That is a theory made by a fan, not an official explanation.

[Cetra]

Quality just without context cannot be objective. He is right. You need to establish a certain standard that people agree upon under which they evaluate. In that relation things can be objective. But there is no universal law that people need to follow that standard and more importantly, the standard does not even exist without people establishing it. Quality is no natural fact. And yes, I can establish a standard under with your Godfather movie and whatever you mentioned before can be equally good.

This is a relativist fallacy. Science is rapidly reaching the conclusion that quality/beauty is an objective and measurable thing like weight and height. Just because people have different tastes and preferences doesn't mean there is no objective quality independent of them. Like how just because people believe different things about a topic (like the shape of the Earth) doesn't mean there are no objective facts about it.

No, it is not a relativist fallacy and the fact that you are trying to argue with an actual scientist does not make it any better. There are things that only can be valued through contextualization. Without context you could be talking about anything without any actual meaning. And I am beginning to think you have not even read what I wrote because if you actually had or at least understood it you would know there was a part where I agreed with you. But you are not right beyond that.

[BrolyKale]

There's a good explanation to that here https://docs.google.com/document/d/15jD ... CkDt0/edit you need to read everything carefully, it's rereboy's interpretation and it's the only logical interpretation I've seen so far.

That is a theory made by a fan, not an official explanation.

There is no official explanation about the movie...

[zarmack]

If you don't believe that quality is objective then it makes no sense to call anything shitty or great. If quality is subjective then the Potaufeu & Black Star arcs (the most critically panned arcs in the franchise) aren't any better or worse than the Saiyan & Namek arcs (the most critically acclaimed ones).

That still doesn't make any sense. If quality is subjective it doesn't suddenly make everything the same in quality.

That first part is especially ridiculous. If you believe that something is subjective, it still makes sense to say something is shitty or great, literally the essence of subjectivity is that it depends on the person's opinion. In my opinion X is really good or Y is really shitty.

That's the logical conclusion of denying the existence of objective quality. If its all just subjective then nothing is truly better or worse than anything else. Its no different from saying "in my opinion, 2+2=5".

[Cetra]

If you don't believe that quality is objective then it makes no sense to call anything shitty or great. If quality is subjective then the Potaufeu & Black Star arcs (the most critically panned arcs in the franchise) aren't any better or worse than the Saiyan & Namek arcs (the most critically acclaimed ones).

That still doesn't make any sense. If quality is subjective it doesn't suddenly make everything the same in quality.

That first part is especially ridiculous. If you believe that something is subjective, it still makes sense to say something is shitty or great, literally the essence of subjectivity is that it depends on the person's opinion. In my opinion X is really good or Y is really shitty.

That's the logical conclusion of denying the existence of objective quality. If its all just subjective then nothing is truly better or worse than anything else. Its no different from saying "in my opinion, 2+2=5".

Yes, it is different. Math works under axioms that establish why things are the way they are. It is not remotely comparable to you claiming The Godfather is an objectively better movie than movie xyz.

[HeroR]

There is no official explanation about the movie...

Exactly, so all this about Broly is really just theories. In the movie from what they gave us, Broly recognized Goku despite that being completely illogical and the only link given to us is 'Goku cried a lot'. It seemed the movie was trying to give a deeper meaning, but it honestly never made sense or came together, and then the sequel movies just did away with any symbolizing they may or may not have been going for.

[BrolyKale]

There is no official explanation about the movie...

Exactly, so all this about Broly is really just theories. In the movie from what they gave us, Broly recognized Goku despite that being completely illogical and the only link given to us is 'Goku cried a lot'. It seemed the movie was trying to give a deeper meaning, but it honestly never made sense or came together, and then the sequel movies just did away with any symbolizing they may or may not have been going for.

No. That's your interpretation.

[wolflonnie]

Old Broly was definitely not shit at all... you are again bashing the old one to make the new one look better.

How is hold Broly any good at all? All he does is scream shit and is angry because Goku cried beside them as kids. That's all there is to him. People have said that for years (me included) so it's not something that came about just because of this new movie.

He is not bad as a villain, not at all. Especially for a movie villain he had a big background, one of the best from the movies. First Broly was a well written villain, its not only about Goku crying as baby its more than that, the crying thing is metaphoric. Broly got nearly killed by King Vegeta as a baby and was thrown in the garbage. He was violent and had a hard time controlling himself, Paragus also used him for his own ambitions too. The second coming made him look more angrier and insane and that's all.

+
It's actually more complex than a mere crying. The crying triggered his PTSD from what happened to him as a baby and turned him into a psychotic version of himself.
Broly was decently written. I mean I've read the synopsis of the new Broly and I'm not that impressed. He seems, at a first read, the typical introvert and controlled guy, with rage fits, much like Kale (a better version of her). I would've kept some of the psychotic facets, maybe not as much as before to keep him sympathetic enough.

[HeroR]

No. That's your interpretation.

I just stated exactly what happened in the movie. Everything else is headcanon that the fandom created over the decades.

[BrolyKale]

No. That's your interpretation.

I just stated exactly what happened in the movie.

No, you didn't. That's your own interpretation. You didn't even read what I posted, because all the things in rereboy's interpretation also come from the movie, every single thing, with pictures.