Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Discussion specifically regarding the "Dragon Ball Super" TV series premiering July 2015 in Japan, including individual threads for each episode.

Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help

WittyUsername
I Live Here
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 12:09 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by WittyUsername » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:16 pm

Rakurai wrote:
WittyUsername wrote:
I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at. Toei also owns the rights to DB, but they aren’t the ones who created the franchise.

Besides, “Mount Paozu” being the name of Goku’s home is something that Toei made up. My initial point was that referencing something that was exclusive to Toei’s version of the series kind of goes against the notion that the manga is entirely Toriyama’s vision. I seriously doubt that Toriyama insisted that Toyatoro randomly reference a name from the anime.
Toei owns the rights to producing the anime. Let me put it this way for you.

Toei made up Bardock's original story. Toriyama still incorporated it into his manga during serialization, before he retconned it (and he is allowed to because he is the author).

Toei made up Broly. Toriyama still incorporated the character into his story.

Toriyama is free to take whatever he wants from any part of the DB franchise and adapt it into his own DB story, hence why he have stuff like Bardock or Broly. Likewise, Toyotarou can take whatever he wants and incorporate it into the manga whether it came from anime or video games, and as long as it doesn't contradict the original manga then it remains a proper canonical sequel.

The DBS manga logically follows the original manga. The same cannot be said from the anime. BlueBasilisk said it best, the anime takes a 'broad-strokes' approach with regards to it which does not work as a canonical sequel. The F. Trunks TV special does not tell the events of F. Trunks as is supposed to be in the original manga story just because the anime decided to adapt it into the Super anime.
Saturnine wrote:There is no such thing as "something canon to something else". There's just "canon" and "not canon". That you probably mean is something entorely consistent with another part of the franchise, which in post BoG Dragon Ball is very difficult to determine, really.
The canonical sequel to the DB manga is the manga, not the anime.
It kind of seems like referencing Mount Paozu in fact be a broad strokes approach itself. Again, Grandpa Gohan’s home didn’t have a name in the manga. Toriyama never gave it one, and unlike in the anime, that place was never revisited after Goku met Bulma. Referencing it definitely doesn’t seem like it would’ve been Toriyama’s idea. Your Bardock comparison doesn’t really work, since even with Bardock’s brief cameo in the manga, there was never any indication that the special as a whole was canon. Toriyama simply referenced it because he liked it. On the other hand, I can’t think of any reason why Mount Paozu would be referenced. It would be like having Gregory show up on Kaio’s planet.

The Broly comparison works even less so, since the upcoming movie is explicitly ignoring the events of the older films.

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Rakurai » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:34 pm

WittyUsername wrote:
It kind of seems like referencing Mount Paozu in fact be a broad strokes approach itself. Again, Grandpa Gohan’s home didn’t have a name in the manga. Toriyama never gave it one, and unlike in the anime, that place was never revisited after Goku met Bulma. Referencing it definitely doesn’t seem like it would’ve been Toriyama’s idea. Your Bardock comparison doesn’t really work, since even with Bardock’s brief cameo in the manga, there was never any indication that the special as a whole was canon. Toriyama simply referenced it because he liked it. On the other hand, I can’t think of any reason why Mount Paozu would be referenced. It would be like having Gregory show up on Kaio’s planet.

The Broly comparison works even less so, since the upcoming movie is explicitly ignoring the events of the older films.
No indication that the special as a whole was canon? Toriyama literally drew Bardock as he was in the special, from the soldiers behind him right down to the blood and battle armor in the same detail, and summarized Frieza's flashback as that of him taking a last stand against Frieza which is exactly what happened in the TV special. What, you think Toriyama just liked that one scene and put it in just for the hell of it? Did he literally need to redraw the entire damn special to explicitly make it clear that he was adapting the TV special as Goku's father's back story at the time?

And you don't seem to understand. I have no doubt that it was Toyotarou's idea to include the name "Mt. Paozu." But it does not in any way contradict the original manga's events or telling. If it was named something else like "Mt. Gyoza" and the DBS manga suddenly started calling it "Mt. Paozu" then yes that would be a contradiction. But it is simply expanding the lore, unlike with the anime where it references several things that ought not have occurred, like the Trunks TV special (because F. Trunks was already a SSJ before F. Gohan's death), like the Bulma/Ginyu frog interaction (because Ginyu never switched bodies with Bulma or tried to make contact with Frieza). Therefore the anime cannot be a canonical sequel to the manga.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

WittyUsername
I Live Here
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 12:09 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by WittyUsername » Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm

Rakurai wrote:
WittyUsername wrote:
It kind of seems like referencing Mount Paozu in fact be a broad strokes approach itself. Again, Grandpa Gohan’s home didn’t have a name in the manga. Toriyama never gave it one, and unlike in the anime, that place was never revisited after Goku met Bulma. Referencing it definitely doesn’t seem like it would’ve been Toriyama’s idea. Your Bardock comparison doesn’t really work, since even with Bardock’s brief cameo in the manga, there was never any indication that the special as a whole was canon. Toriyama simply referenced it because he liked it. On the other hand, I can’t think of any reason why Mount Paozu would be referenced. It would be like having Gregory show up on Kaio’s planet.

The Broly comparison works even less so, since the upcoming movie is explicitly ignoring the events of the older films.
No indication that the special as a whole was canon? Toriyama literally drew Bardock as he was in the special, from the soldiers behind him right down to the blood and battle armor, and summarized Frieza's flashback as that of him taking a last stand against Frieza which is exactly what happened in the TV special. What, you think Toriyama just liked that one scene and put it in just for the hell of it? Did he literally need to redraw the entire damn special to explicitly make it clear that he was adapting the TV special as Goku's father's back story at the time?

And you don't seem to understand. I have no doubt that it was Toyotarou's idea to include the name "Mt. Paozu." But it does not in any way contradict the original manga's events or telling. If it was intially named something else like "Mt. Gyoza" and the DBS manga suddenly started calling it "Mt. Paozu" then yes that would be a contradiction. But it is simply expanding the lore, unlike with the anime where it references several things that ought not have occurred, like the Trunks TV special (because F. Trunks was already a SSJ before F. Gohan's death), like the Bulma/Ginyu frog interaction (because Ginyu never switched bodies with Bulma or tried to make contact with Frieza). Therefore the anime cannot be a canonical sequel to the manga.
If you want to argue that Toriyama was trying to imply the Bardock special as a whole was canon because of that one panel shot, it’s worth pointing out that Bardock wasn’t shown grinning in the manga like he was in the anime.

Image

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Rakurai » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:36 pm

WittyUsername wrote: If you want to argue that Toriyama was trying to imply the Bardock special as a whole was canon because of that one panel shot, it’s worth pointing out that Bardock wasn’t shown grinning in the manga like he was in the anime.
I can't believe some people are this completely anal or obstinate to believe Toriyama would go so far as to reference a part of the anime like it's a taint to his almighty story canon.

One facial change (smirk vs scowl) does not override the various other exact details (wounds, battle armor, battle armor damage, soldiers behind Bardock) and the fact that Toriyama included that panel after the special aired, with context behind the panel too.

Why is it so hard for people to believe Toriyama wanted the Bardock special to be a part of his story at some point in time?

But that's beside the point. Mt. Paozu is not a contradiction to the original manga anymore than than the characters Bardock or Broly are when they add new information to the manga universe. It's a location name ffs. It's Toyo's inclusion but he's known to use the original manga as reference and he knows how to avoid actual continuity errors like F. Trunks turning SSJ at F. Gohan's death, he's not an idiot.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

WittyUsername
I Live Here
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 12:09 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by WittyUsername » Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:02 pm

Rakurai wrote:
WittyUsername wrote: If you want to argue that Toriyama was trying to imply the Bardock special as a whole was canon because of that one panel shot, it’s worth pointing out that Bardock wasn’t shown grinning in the manga like he was in the anime.
I can't believe some people are this completely anal or obstinate to believe Toriyama would go so far as to reference a part of the anime like it's a taint to his almighty story canon.

One facial change (smirk vs scowl) does not override the various other exact details (wounds, battle armor, battle armor damage, soldiers behind Bardock) and the fact that Toriyama included that panel after the special aired, with context behind the panel too.

Why is it so hard for people to believe Toriyama wanted the Bardock special to be a part of his story at some point in time?

But that's beside the point. Mt. Paozu is not a contradiction to the original manga anymore than than the characters Bardock or Broly are when they add new information to the manga universe. It's a location name ffs. It's Toyo's inclusion but he's known to use the original manga as reference and he knows how to avoid actual continuity errors like F. Trunks turning SSJ at F. Gohan's death, he's not an idiot.
Because apart from the fact that he straight up ignored pretty much everything to do with it in Minus, he also stated that if he had written about Goku’s father, the story would’ve been “lighter in tone by far”. He never even claimed that he considered the special to be canon to his manga. Maybe he was trying to imply that Goku’s father was able to see into the future and considered his son to be trash, just like his Toei counterpart, but having a single panel that more or less served as a cute little nod to something Toriyama liked isn’t really proof on its own.

As a side note, reading through Mistarefusion/Gaffer Tape’s Dragon Ball Dissection thread made me realize that the manga for Super has another thing that’s inconsistent with the original manga, which is that Piccolo has five fingers in it, despite the fact that he only had four in Toriyama’s manga.

Just so you know, I’m not even trying to make any definitive statements about either version of Super not being canon to the original manga. As I said in the OP, canon in Dragon Ball has become a mess, and I’ve long since given up on trying to figure out what the definitive canon for the series is. You’re free to view the current manga as the one true continuation of Toriyama’s original work. I’m simply pointing out that both versions of Super seem to like picking and choosing what to incorporate from the old anime.

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Rakurai » Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:43 pm

WittyUsername wrote:
Rakurai wrote:
WittyUsername wrote: If you want to argue that Toriyama was trying to imply the Bardock special as a whole was canon because of that one panel shot, it’s worth pointing out that Bardock wasn’t shown grinning in the manga like he was in the anime.
I can't believe some people are this completely anal or obstinate to believe Toriyama would go so far as to reference a part of the anime like it's a taint to his almighty story canon.

One facial change (smirk vs scowl) does not override the various other exact details (wounds, battle armor, battle armor damage, soldiers behind Bardock) and the fact that Toriyama included that panel after the special aired, with context behind the panel too.

Why is it so hard for people to believe Toriyama wanted the Bardock special to be a part of his story at some point in time?

But that's beside the point. Mt. Paozu is not a contradiction to the original manga anymore than than the characters Bardock or Broly are when they add new information to the manga universe. It's a location name ffs. It's Toyo's inclusion but he's known to use the original manga as reference and he knows how to avoid actual continuity errors like F. Trunks turning SSJ at F. Gohan's death, he's not an idiot.
Because apart from the fact that he straight up ignored pretty much everything to do with it in Minus, he also stated that if he had written about Goku’s father, the story would’ve been “lighter in tone by far”. He never even claimed that he considered the special to be canon to his manga. Maybe he was trying to imply that Goku’s father was able to see into the future and considered his son to be trash, just like his Toei counterpart, but having a single panel that more or less served as a cute little nod to something Toriyama liked isn’t really proof on its own.

As a side note, reading through Mistarefusion/Gaffer Tape’s Dragon Ball Dissection thread made me realize that the manga for Super has another thing that’s inconsistent with the original manga, which is that Piccolo has five fingers in it, despite the fact that he only had four in Toriyama’s manga.

Just so you know, I’m not even trying to make any definitive statements about either version of Super not being canon to the original manga. As I said in the OP, canon in Dragon Ball has become a mess, and I’ve long since given up on trying to figure out what the definitive canon for the series is. You’re free to view the current manga as the one true continuation of Toriyama’s original work. I’m simply pointing out that both versions of Super seem to like picking and choosing what to incorporate from the old anime.
That's why I said at the time. A 20+ period is obviously going to open his mind up a bit. He also changed ending in the Kanzenban release of the manga by making Vegeta more like a stubborn fool to their rivalry.

The five finger Piccolo isn't there because Toyo doesn't know how many fingers Piccolo originally had or because he stuck to the anime, it's because of censorship. Look up the meaning of four fingers in Japan. It's literally the same reason why the anime chose to do it as well. Toyo may not even have a choice with V Jump if it is more strict and milder in content than Weekly Shonen Jump.

Aside from the Piccolo finger thing, something out of his control because of censorship, there aren't any contradictions to the original manga. Adding content from the anime doesn't necessarily make it so.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

WittyUsername
I Live Here
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 12:09 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by WittyUsername » Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:21 am

Rakurai wrote:
WittyUsername wrote:
Rakurai wrote:
I can't believe some people are this completely anal or obstinate to believe Toriyama would go so far as to reference a part of the anime like it's a taint to his almighty story canon.

One facial change (smirk vs scowl) does not override the various other exact details (wounds, battle armor, battle armor damage, soldiers behind Bardock) and the fact that Toriyama included that panel after the special aired, with context behind the panel too.

Why is it so hard for people to believe Toriyama wanted the Bardock special to be a part of his story at some point in time?

But that's beside the point. Mt. Paozu is not a contradiction to the original manga anymore than than the characters Bardock or Broly are when they add new information to the manga universe. It's a location name ffs. It's Toyo's inclusion but he's known to use the original manga as reference and he knows how to avoid actual continuity errors like F. Trunks turning SSJ at F. Gohan's death, he's not an idiot.
Because apart from the fact that he straight up ignored pretty much everything to do with it in Minus, he also stated that if he had written about Goku’s father, the story would’ve been “lighter in tone by far”. He never even claimed that he considered the special to be canon to his manga. Maybe he was trying to imply that Goku’s father was able to see into the future and considered his son to be trash, just like his Toei counterpart, but having a single panel that more or less served as a cute little nod to something Toriyama liked isn’t really proof on its own.

As a side note, reading through Mistarefusion/Gaffer Tape’s Dragon Ball Dissection thread made me realize that the manga for Super has another thing that’s inconsistent with the original manga, which is that Piccolo has five fingers in it, despite the fact that he only had four in Toriyama’s manga.

Just so you know, I’m not even trying to make any definitive statements about either version of Super not being canon to the original manga. As I said in the OP, canon in Dragon Ball has become a mess, and I’ve long since given up on trying to figure out what the definitive canon for the series is. You’re free to view the current manga as the one true continuation of Toriyama’s original work. I’m simply pointing out that both versions of Super seem to like picking and choosing what to incorporate from the old anime.
That's why I said at the time. A 20+ period is obviously going to open his mind up a bit. He also changed ending in the Kanzenban release of the manga by making Vegeta more like a stubborn fool to their rivalry.

The five finger Piccolo isn't there because Toyo doesn't know how many fingers Piccolo originally had or because he stuck to the anime, it's because of censorship. Look up the meaning of four fingers in Japan. It's literally the same reason why the anime chose to do it as well. Toyo may not even have a choice with V Jump if it is more strict and milder in content than Weekly Shonen Jump.

Aside from the Piccolo finger thing, something out of his control because of censorship, there aren't any contradictions to the original manga. Adding content from the anime doesn't necessarily make it so.
Toriyama referencing the special for a single panel isn’t the same as making it canon. The Bardock special was more than just one shot of him scowling at Freeza in space (which wasn’t even what he did when he confronted Freeza).

Anyway, if you want to argue that referencing Mount Paozu is simply expanding on the manga, I could easily argue the same thing about the appearance of Gregory in the anime by arguing that just because we never saw him in the manga, it doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, especially since Toriyama designed the character.

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Rakurai » Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:59 am

WittyUsername wrote: Toriyama referencing the special for a single panel isn’t the same as making it canon. The Bardock special was more than just one shot of him scowling at Freeza in space (which wasn’t even what he did when he confronted Freeza).

Anyway, if you want to argue that referencing Mount Paozu is simply expanding on the manga, I could easily argue the same thing about the appearance of Gregory in the anime by arguing that just because we never saw him in the manga, it doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, especially since Toriyama designed the character.
Arguing for Gregory is one thing, which is why I didn't push it. But the other two blatant contradictions, the Trunks TV special flashback & the Ginyu Frog/Bulma interaction, still stand. They cannot be reconciled with the original manga in terms of story. The DBS manga never did anything like that.

I'm not going to argue the Bardock point any longer. It's pretty clear to me that it was the definitive story for Bardock at the time, especially since Toriyama ended his manga without ever expanding upon it until the DB revival period (basically BoG up until now). If you don't believe it, fine but I'm not going to be the fool who believes Toriyama intricately planned for one-time rebel bandanna Bardock and Gine Bardock to be the exact same person some 20 years later after original publication.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

User avatar
Nia
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:20 pm

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Nia » Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:55 am

Rakurai wrote: The five finger Piccolo isn't there because Toyo doesn't know how many fingers Piccolo originally had or because he stuck to the anime, it's because of censorship. Look up the meaning of four fingers in Japan. It's literally the same reason why the anime chose to do it as well. Toyo may not even have a choice with V Jump if it is more strict and milder in content than Weekly Shonen Jump.
It was clearly a choice on Toyotaro's part. Reincarnated as Yamcha features 4 digits on the Namekian hands just like Toriyama's manga.
Image

Also, regarding continuity, did Toyotaro not change the effects of time travel massively, by making time flow at the same rate in the future as it does to the point in time they're travelling to, despite being a massive contradiction to the original manga?

User avatar
dbgtFO
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7761
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by dbgtFO » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:13 am

Nia wrote:Also, regarding continuity, did Toyotaro not change the effects of time travel massively, by making time flow at the same rate in the future as it does to the point in time they're travelling to, despite being a massive contradiction to the original manga?
He did make that part of his story, yes, but can you please show where that contradicts the original manga?

User avatar
ekrolo2
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7840
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:27 am
Location: Split, Croatia

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by ekrolo2 » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:39 am

Piccolo has five fingers in both versions of Super, they're not canon the manga.
When someone tells you, "Don't present your opinion as fact," what they're actually saying is, "Don't present your opinion with any conviction. Because I don't like your opinion, and I want to be able to dismiss it as easily as possible." Don't fall for it.

How the Black Arc Should End (by Lightbing!):

User avatar
Nia
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:20 pm

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Nia » Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:54 pm

dbgtFO wrote:
Nia wrote:Also, regarding continuity, did Toyotaro not change the effects of time travel massively, by making time flow at the same rate in the future as it does to the point in time they're travelling to, despite being a massive contradiction to the original manga?
He did make that part of his story, yes, but can you please show where that contradicts the original manga?
How does it not?

Trunks in the Cell arc goes back in time about 20 years. At this point, he kills Freeza and gives Goku the heart virus medicine and returns to his own timeline. Eight months later, he returns to the main timeline but the main timeline has advanced 3 years. There's nothing that even remotely implies that it's a different Trunks or a different main timeline.

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Rakurai » Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:28 pm

Nia wrote:
Rakurai wrote: The five finger Piccolo isn't there because Toyo doesn't know how many fingers Piccolo originally had or because he stuck to the anime, it's because of censorship. Look up the meaning of four fingers in Japan. It's literally the same reason why the anime chose to do it as well. Toyo may not even have a choice with V Jump if it is more strict and milder in content than Weekly Shonen Jump.
It was clearly a choice on Toyotaro's part. Reincarnated as Yamcha features 4 digits on the Namekian hands just like Toriyama's manga.
Image

Also, regarding continuity, did Toyotaro not change the effects of time travel massively, by making time flow at the same rate in the future as it does to the point in time they're travelling to, despite being a massive contradiction to the original manga?
I did not know that so good point. But the four-finger taboo runs pretty deep in Japanese culture so censoring it is pretty understandable. For more obscure works like Reincarnated Yamcha, it might be fine but for a popular series like DBS, and the official continuation at that, it's going to be under scrutiny by a lot of readers. Heck, Nagayama even had Dende & Lord Slug have five fingers in the SDBH manga. Although very popular mangaka for Shonen Jump can get away with a lot of things not normally done within their genre.

The cosmetic change, however, is less important than re-telling of events. Toriyama even added a 5th finger to King Piccolo in one panel for the 5-sec count.

I'd have to look more into the time travel contradiction you just mentioned. That might be a good example of continuity contradictions.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

User avatar
Nia
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:20 pm

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Nia » Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:00 pm

Rakurai wrote:
Nia wrote:
Rakurai wrote: The five finger Piccolo isn't there because Toyo doesn't know how many fingers Piccolo originally had or because he stuck to the anime, it's because of censorship. Look up the meaning of four fingers in Japan. It's literally the same reason why the anime chose to do it as well. Toyo may not even have a choice with V Jump if it is more strict and milder in content than Weekly Shonen Jump.
It was clearly a choice on Toyotaro's part. Reincarnated as Yamcha features 4 digits on the Namekian hands just like Toriyama's manga.
Image

Also, regarding continuity, did Toyotaro not change the effects of time travel massively, by making time flow at the same rate in the future as it does to the point in time they're travelling to, despite being a massive contradiction to the original manga?
I did not know that so good point. But the four-finger taboo runs pretty deep in Japanese culture so censoring it is pretty understandable. For more obscure works like Reincarnated Yamcha, it might be fine but for a popular series like DBS, and the official continuation at that, it's going to be under scrutiny by a lot of readers. Heck, Nagayama even had Dende & Lord Slug have five fingers in the SDBH manga. Although very popular mangaka for Shonen Jump can get away with a lot of things not normally done within their genre.

The cosmetic change, however, is less important than re-telling of events. Toriyama even added a 5th finger to King Piccolo in one panel for the 5-sec count.

I'd have to look more into the time travel contradiction you just mentioned. That might be a good example of continuity contradictions.
I'm aware of the cultural stuff involving 4 fingers. However, I believe that may merely be an issue in TV broadcasting, not in manga (much like how console games are subjected to heavy censorship rules but PC games are not, over in Japan).
That being said, I do agree it's a minor cosmetic change (and the Toriyama moment was even turned into a joke).

However, I also think the timing of Trunks going SSJ the first time is also minor; especially since in Toriyama's manga we never saw Trunks get the form and we never saw him do anything more than training prior to that.
Also, regarding the continuity in the anime: other than the Trunks thing and the Ginyu Frog thing (which honestly I pretty much ignore since the movies exist and would place them as priority storytelling over the retellings), the anime actually does directly reference a moment that previously only existed in the original manga and not in Z/Kai (regarding a couple criminals Gohan once stopped as Saiyaman).

User avatar
alakazam^
I Live Here
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:55 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by alakazam^ » Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:58 pm

Nia wrote:Also, regarding the continuity in the anime: other than the Trunks thing and the Ginyu Frog thing
Ginyu can be handwaved because they never explicitly state why Bulma was annoyed by seeing the frog. Since Ginyu had a flashback with baby Trunks playing with him and Bulma laughing nearby, we can just make up some explanation for her reaction. The problem would be him being alive at all but maybe that can be handwaved as well.

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Rakurai » Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:43 pm

Nia wrote: Eight months later, he returns to the main timeline but the main timeline has advanced 3 years. There's nothing that even remotely implies that it's a different Trunks or a different main timeline.
So about this.

The F. Trunks we know changed the settings on his time machine after waiting one year to go Age 767 which is when the Androids would appear, instead of Age 765 which is one year after his last visit. So yeah the F. Trunks from the Cell saga is most likely not the same exact Trunks who gave Goku the medicine. I don't see anything wrong with this.

In case you forgot, the main timeline has two future beings, F. Trunks & Cell. In Cell's original history, that F. Trunks went back to the past to save Goku, and later scope out the Androids' blueprints and create a deactivation remote. Different F. Trunks can and do exist.

Ultimately I don't see any contradiction. If time passes in one timeline, the same amount of time is also passed in a parallel timeline.
Nia wrote:However, I also think the timing of Trunks going SSJ the first time is also minor; especially since in Toriyama's manga we never saw Trunks get the form and we never saw him do anything more than training prior to that.
Also, regarding the continuity in the anime: other than the Trunks thing and the Ginyu Frog thing (which honestly I pretty much ignore since the movies exist and would place them as priority storytelling over the retellings), the anime actually does directly reference a moment that previously only existed in the original manga and not in Z/Kai (regarding a couple criminals Gohan once stopped as Saiyaman).
As stated before, the Super anime takes a 'broad strokes' approach incorporating things from both the manga & anime. But by including or referencing events that exclusively happened in the anime, it already contradicts the original manga.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

User avatar
Nia
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:20 pm

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Nia » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:06 am

Rakurai wrote:
Nia wrote: Eight months later, he returns to the main timeline but the main timeline has advanced 3 years. There's nothing that even remotely implies that it's a different Trunks or a different main timeline.
So about this.

The F. Trunks we know changed the settings on his time machine after waiting one year to go Age 767 which is when the Androids would appear, instead of Age 765 which is one year after his last visit. So yeah the F. Trunks from the Cell saga is most likely not the same exact Trunks who gave Goku the medicine. I don't see anything wrong with this.

In case you forgot, the main timeline has two future beings, F. Trunks & Cell. In Cell's original history, that F. Trunks went back to the past to save Goku, and later scope out the Androids' blueprints and create a deactivation remote. Different F. Trunks can and do exist.

Ultimately I don't see any contradiction. If time passes in one timeline, the same amount of time is also passed in a parallel timeline.
It would still have to be the same Trunks though; it'd be the main timeline that would then be different (which again, is never remotely suggested). Trunks changing the settings on the time machine means he'd go to a different history than the one he previously visited. Shouldn't that imply that he's created yet another timeline rather than being a different Trunks?
Seems like a pretty big contradiction to me.

Cell's timeline was three years ahead of Trunks' as he came from 788. He went back to 763, a year before Freeza and King Cold land on Earth. It's already an entirely different scenario to begin with. What that Trunks went through would be entirely unrelated to the main timeline to begin with (which actually brings up the question of how they made a deactivation remote to begin with: Trunks and Kuririn literally only find the plans to #17 and #18 because they went there to prevent Cell from being finished, which should imply that Trunks would have already known about Cell and does anyone else taste purple?).

This also results in an issue caused regarding Zamasu/Goku Black: if they stole the time machine from U12, then shouldn't there be more Time Rings? Doesn't each one represent a split timeline? They'd have to have many more than that, given how Black states that he's killed Gowasu "countless times." Every time he goes back in time and kills Gowasu, wouldn't that create yet another timeline? Obviously, they're not going back to the same point in time. Shouldn't there be several more timelines caused by the Cell stuff alone?

User avatar
dbgtFO
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7761
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by dbgtFO » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:58 am

Nia wrote:
dbgtFO wrote:
Nia wrote:Also, regarding continuity, did Toyotaro not change the effects of time travel massively, by making time flow at the same rate in the future as it does to the point in time they're travelling to, despite being a massive contradiction to the original manga?
He did make that part of his story, yes, but can you please show where that contradicts the original manga?
How does it not?

Trunks in the Cell arc goes back in time about 20 years. At this point, he kills Freeza and gives Goku the heart virus medicine and returns to his own timeline. Eight months later, he returns to the main timeline but the main timeline has advanced 3 years. There's nothing that even remotely implies that it's a different Trunks or a different main timeline.
It is not stated in the manga how much time had passed in Trunks' timeline, when he came back the second time. So no contradiction.

User avatar
Nia
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:20 pm

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by Nia » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:49 am

dbgtFO wrote:
Nia wrote:
dbgtFO wrote: He did make that part of his story, yes, but can you please show where that contradicts the original manga?
How does it not?

Trunks in the Cell arc goes back in time about 20 years. At this point, he kills Freeza and gives Goku the heart virus medicine and returns to his own timeline. Eight months later, he returns to the main timeline but the main timeline has advanced 3 years. There's nothing that even remotely implies that it's a different Trunks or a different main timeline.
It is not stated in the manga how much time had passed in Trunks' timeline, when he came back the second time. So no contradiction.
I have no reason to find the dates given in anything else to be incorrect: 784 was when Trunks left the future the first time, 785 when he left and returned the second time. And it would have to be 785 when he returned on the grounds of Cell leaving from 788.

It's clearly stated by Future Bulma that he requires 8 months for the Time Machine to charge for a round trip, and later Kuririn points out that it requires a long time to charge thus making him attempt to go further back in time a non-option. The year given from Cell's future is 3 years after his current time (age 788); Trunks very clearly says this himself.

You don't need him to say how much time had passed because the numbers are already there by his own word. It's simple enough to use a timeline to match this all up. So yes, there is a contradiction.

User avatar
dbgtFO
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7761
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Regarding what’s canon to what, Super doesn’t really work as a continuation of Kai

Post by dbgtFO » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:08 am

Nia wrote:I have no reason to find the dates given in anything else to be incorrect: 784 was when Trunks left the future the first time, 785 when he left and returned the second time. And it would have to be 785 when he returned on the grounds of Cell leaving from 788.

It's clearly stated by Future Bulma that he requires 8 months for the Time Machine to charge for a round trip, and later Kuririn points out that it requires a long time to charge thus making him attempt to go further back in time a non-option. The year given from Cell's future is 3 years after his current time (age 788); Trunks very clearly says this himself.

You don't need him to say how much time had passed because the numbers are already there by his own word. It's simple enough to use a timeline to match this all up. So yes, there is a contradiction.
Only age ever stated in the manga is the age from which Cell came, 788. Age 784 is not mentioned in the manga.
The 8 months line comes from the Trunks special chapter in which it is also stated that Trunks' first trip will take him back 17 years, which is also how much time is between the two timelines in Super, so again no contradiction.

Post Reply