Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
If they simply appeared, I inherently would know. And by your logic, that's enough.
No you wouldn't, because you apparently require long flashbacks to things we've already been told in 1988 for something to be properly "explained". This incarnation of Broly was never a factor in the story before, but we've known for years that Goku was sent to Earth and the others were on-mission, and there's nothing here that makes any difference to the point in the story that the movie takes place.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
Why are you under the assumption that it has to change something? It expands upon what we knew. It explains how and why he survived.
Yeah which is why it's perfect for a non-story extra chapter like Minus, not Dragon Ball Super: Broly. It's a movie, not a wiki article. The flashbacks in the film have no connection to Goku and Vegeta's purpose in the story. Also everything it changes is for the worse and didn't need to happen, but semantics.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
Is the character getting the apple part of the story? If so, yes. If not, no.
Well that's a good thing because Goku being sent to Earth by Bardock and Gine has
nothing to do with the story of this movie.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
There obviously is, as we ended up seeing. Again, wether you like it or care about it is beside the point. You're free to not like it or care about it. That new information was presented is a fact, not an opinion.
Again, it informs nothing. The only "new" thing to learn is a more-boring version of something we already knew happened.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
The scenes were included because that's the story as established and provided by Toriyama. They didn't make it up, they didn't tell something else. It's what the story is about. It's not an attempt to prop up anything, it is what it is.
I'm not sure you really understood what I said here. Obviously the scenes are in the movie because that's the movie they made. That doesn't mean they're meaningful or needed to be there.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
Everyone knows that's your opinion. The point is that it's completely unnecessary to use it as a counter-argument when it's not one. You finding something bad, bland, not interesting, whatever, is your subjective evaluation. It's not an argument that addresses mine. It's pointless talk. I'm not asking you to find interesting what I find interesting.
Well but you kinda are. You're saying it's all necessary and required and acting like your assumed reasoning for the way it was made is an absolute truth and I'm saying it isn't. I'm saying it doesn't need to be here because it adds nothing, what do you think
adding something means? Because it's not literally
anything, and the only difference in our
opinions is that you think nothing is something. This is a story. Which parts of it are worth showing (especially ones that have been already explained) are inherently a subjective debate whether you like it or not.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 amI'm not using it as an argument against yours so drop the needless condescension.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
No, it doesn't. And the difference is that I never implied that it did.
Nor did I the inverse, but that didn't seem to be a problem for you. You seem to have this idea that if something is included, it's automatically meaningful and necessary. That's not true, and there's no "fact" that says it does. The only factors at play in this argument is your opinion versus mine, and so far all you've done is say that because a scene was produced, that means it's good enough to be a part of the movie about
Broly. I'm not saying this stuff has no place in the story of Dragon Ball (well, I mean, the Bardock stuff doesn't because it's shite, but regardless), but the movie is Dragon Ball Super: Broly. Despite the marketing claiming that it's about three saiyans, only one is given an arc throughout the film. Only one's backstory actually connects to their role in the plot, and the other two are just there to half-heartedly claim that something bigger is going on than it is. None of this is "objective", on your end OR mine.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
What doublethink? That's a false dichotomy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
By this logic,
thinking about anything is equivalent to having actually done it. That's a dangerous mindset to have.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
It's not my interpretation. Bardock is in the movie because Minus and the events of the manga are in the movie (he's part of both). It's not like Toriyama's script and story didn't include him and he was shoehorned into it.
It is your interpretation, because there's nothing that directly confirms or denies that at
all. You don't think it's possible other aspects of production or management had an influence on what Toriyama wrote? This is the fourth
Broly movie, you think he just chose that and didn't want to do something more original? It's 100% your interpretation, your
assumption, so long as we don't have anything at all to confirm that.
Luso Saiyan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:19 am
Context doesn't require dialogue. And yes, I do say it in contrast to what you said. Every fight has a context, it doesn't appear out of thin air. To assume that the mentioned cut content was only and exclusively a fight between the two characters is ridiculous and not what was said. But hey, you're free to make that assumption. I'll stick to mine.
Yeah,
you're saying it. Not the people who made the movie.