Manga 'retcons'(?)

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

ankokudaishogun
OMG CRAZY REG
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:07 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by ankokudaishogun » Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:18 pm

Grimlock wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:18 pm
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:06 pm
You are forgetting he moved forward 3 years in the SAME timeline, instead of moving back to his future.
Not forgetting anything, that's all there is to it. And no, when Trunks leaves the present, he goes back to his future. He doesn't go anywhere else.
I remember him leaving Goku saying he'd travel straight to "three years in the future", not that he would first stop by his own time.

Am I misremembering?
Not really. Goku's birth year was always AGE 737.
This was never stated in the manga.
But if we consider that Goku spent a full three years inside the incubator, that means his new birth year is AGE 736. Fortunately, there's a simple solution for that. The problems that "41 years ago" brings is far more worrying than just a mere difference of one year in birth years.
such as being...?

SSJgogeto
Regular
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by SSJgogeto » Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:14 pm

Grimlock wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:05 pm
Yes. All the events and their dates as we know it were based on this single mention.

Image
Nice.

I did a little research in the manga, and in 'Trunks The History' Bulma said "you'll travel 17 years into the past" or something. Based on this, and also on the fact that Trunks killed the androids in AGE 785, there's nothing in the manga about his first travel being in AGE 782, right?

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:58 am

ankokudaishogun wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:18 pm
I remember him leaving Goku saying he'd travel straight to "three years in the future", not that he would first stop by his own time.

Am I misremembering?
Most certainly, yes.
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:18 pm
This was never stated in the manga.
It doesn't need to. As I posted already, AGE 788 is stated and we ourselves can make a timeline based on it. In fact, I did once and when I compared it to the guidebooks' version, everything was correct, that obviously includes Goku's AGE 737.
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:18 pm
such as being...?
Sorry. I don't feel like writing all the contradictions it causes right now. The text will be a lot longer than the one I wrote about Trunks. And, to be honest, you don't seem like you really want to know it, considering you ignored half of my previous text. Maybe some other time when there's legit interest in it.
SSJgogeto wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:14 pm
I did a little research in the manga, and in 'Trunks The History' Bulma said "you'll travel 17 years into the past" or something. Based on this, and also on the fact that Trunks killed the androids in AGE 785, there's nothing in the manga about his first travel being in AGE 782, right?
I've heard Bulma says Trunks travels seventeen years in the past but, curiously, I've never found such statement. Would be nice to have a confirmation of that. If that's the case, it contradicts previous statement by Trunks himself saying he comes from twenty years in the future. And the official timeline is based on the fact that he comes from twenty years in the future, not seventeen. Which means even if Bulma's line is real, we can't consider it.

Trunks coming from seventeen years in the future only works (and is stated as such, for that matter) in Dragon Ball Super.

SSJgogeto
Regular
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by SSJgogeto » Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:01 am

It took some time, but:
I know, it contradicts what Trunks said before, but the same Trunks said something like "Android 20 and 21 killed everyone". Looks like the retcon isn't from Super, but from Toriyama himself in his original work.

About the official timeline, it comes from Daizenshuu, right? I don't know what you guys think, but IMO the manga precedes the Daizenshuu.

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:08 am

SSJgogeto wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:01 am
but the same Trunks said something like "Android 20 and 21 killed everyone". Looks like the retcon isn't from Super, but from Toriyama himself in his original work.
That's a mistake from Toriyama, not Trunks, as he originally intended for Android 19 and Android 20 to be the villains.
SSJgogeto wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:01 am
About the official timeline, it comes from Daizenshuu, right? I don't know what you guys think, but IMO the manga precedes the Daizenshuu.
Yes, based on the AGE 788 from the manga, which makes it completely relevant.

ankokudaishogun
OMG CRAZY REG
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:07 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by ankokudaishogun » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:46 am

first, it's worth to remember changes in text happen among various editions.
Mostly between magazine and volumes, but also between re-edition of volumes.

So we might have panels from different editions, explaining the contradictions.
In such cases, usually the latest edition is the one to be used.
...we don't know which one of them is, though


That said:
this says 788 is "Three years later the future I'm from"
This means Trunks came from 785.
He went back to 765 if this is to be taken literally(it is possible Trunks just rounded the number: the Italian edition in fact uses "about 20 years")
But this means he went back to 768 instead.

Then again this has Trunks saying he'd try to come back in 3 years to help, if he survives long enough to recharge the time machine.

So, most likely the explanation is:
Toriyama messed up(likely as side effect of keep changing the enemies of the saga).
ANY use of the time machine would create an inconsistency.
Being a poisoned well, I wouldn't call it a retcon.

A possible explanation is the Freeza-killer Trunks coming from 782, and spending 3 years in the future before coming back to 765.
Another possible explanation is that changing the setting to reach the altered timeline in a different time-frame is something extremely difficult only Future Bulma could do.

SSJgogeto
Regular
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by SSJgogeto » Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:24 pm

ankokudaishogun wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:46 am
A possible explanation is the Freeza-killer Trunks coming from 782, and spending 3 years in the future before coming back to 765.
That's my favorite route. With this everything would make sense, except for the "20 years" thing. But again, it's very possible that Toriyama retconned that bit of information.
Grimlock wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:08 am
Yes, based on the AGE 788 from the manga, which makes it completely relevant.
I think partially relevant should be more accurate, at least in this discussion. If the Daizenshuu is based on the Trunks' first declaration then it is essentially outdated data.
Last edited by SSJgogeto on Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:17 pm

ankokudaishogun wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:46 am
first, it's worth to remember changes in text happen among various editions.
Mostly between magazine and volumes, but also between re-edition of volumes.
Which is why we should stick with the Japanese version and an accurate translation next to it. Unfortunately, I have neither.
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:46 am
He went back to 765 if this is to be taken literally
No, because you would be applying Toyotaro's logic here. Yes, he would go back to AGE 765 if in the future three years had passed like in the present. But that's not the case. Once Trunks made his first twenty-year trip to the past and then three years passes in the present while just one year passes in the future, the time machine was already set to go exactly to that timeline where three years had passed. That's precisely where time stops working the same way between those timelines.
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:46 am
But this means he went back to 768 instead.
Not really. Trunks travels from AGE 784. If we start considering that instead of going back twenty years in the past, he went seventeen, that means: AGE 784 - 17 = AGE 767. He should have warned about the androids and stuff in the same year everything happens, then. On top of that, he says the androids would appear in three years, which means they should have appeared in AGE 770. Then there's a seven-year timeskip until Majin Buu, which would change its events to AGE 777... And the problem goes on.
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:46 am
So, most likely the explanation is:
Toriyama messed up(likely as side effect of keep changing the enemies of the saga).
ANY use of the time machine would create an inconsistency.
Being a poisoned well, I wouldn't call it a retcon.

A possible explanation is the Freeza-killer Trunks coming from 782, and spending 3 years in the future before coming back to 765.
Another possible explanation is that changing the setting to reach the altered timeline in a different time-frame is something extremely difficult only Future Bulma could do.
Toriyama messed up by making Bulma saying he's going back seventeen years in the past instead of the previous twenty established before, but we should stick to the twenty years to avoid unnecessary headaches. That seventeen years seems to be from the fact that in the present three years passes and in the future just one had passed, which makes sense once you come to realize it. The machine makes that difference so that Trunks can go exactly where he wants. If he changes anything and set it to go twenty years, then he would go to a different past.

Trunks cannot come from AGE 782 to warn about the androids either, that would mean:

• AGE 782 - 20 = AGE 762 (Trunks should have appeared during Saiyan/Freeza saga).
• AGE 782 - 17 = AGE 765 (this contradicts his statement saying he would be born in around two years and a half and would make Cell saga to take place one year ahead of the original date).

User avatar
Koitsukai
I'm pretty cozy, here...
Posts: 1513
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:02 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Koitsukai » Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:32 pm

This one is not really a manga retcon but a movie retcon, and just a gag, but still Toriyama retconning Toriyama.

EoZ has Goku telling Bulma he looks older, and she replies she might even ask Shenron to make her young again. We've seen this was the reason why Bulma was gathering the DBs in the Broly movie, and it was implied it wasn't the first time she was doing it.

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:00 pm

SSJgogeto wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:24 pm
If the Daizenshuu is based on the Trunks' first declaration then it is essentially outdated data.
Well, if you are free to think he travels seventeen years into the past in the original manga/Dragon Ball Z (and to think that "one day passes equally in the present and future" for that matter). All I can do is wish you good luck with a broken timeline and to explain the inexplicable.

SSJgogeto
Regular
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by SSJgogeto » Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:06 pm

Seems like it's only "inexplicable" if you count the guides and maybe the games, so I'm okay with that.

ankokudaishogun
OMG CRAZY REG
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:07 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by ankokudaishogun » Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:51 pm

Grimlock wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:17 pm
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:46 am
first, it's worth to remember changes in text happen among various editions.
Mostly between magazine and volumes, but also between re-edition of volumes.
Which is why we should stick with the Japanese version and an accurate translation next to it. Unfortunately, I have neither.
I was actually referring to the original Japanese volumes.
While the most common changes are between Magazine and Volume, it sometimes happen there are changes between Japanese editions.
Once Trunks made his first twenty-year trip to the past and then three years passes in the present while just one year passes in the future,
Except we don't know how much time he spent in the future?


the time machine was already set to go exactly to that timeline where three years had passed. That's precisely where time stops working the same way between those timelines.
Not really. Trunks travels from AGE 784.
Do you even MATH?
How can 788-3=764?
Because the ONLY hard date we are given in the manga for the saga is the date of Cell's time machine: 788
Then we are EXPLICITLY told it's from 3, no 4, years after Future Trunks' time.

It's LITERALLY and MATHEMATICALLY impossible for Trunks coming from 764 with the numbers we are given.
The machine makes that difference so that Trunks can go exactly where he wants.
Except we NOW know that's false.

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:30 pm

ankokudaishogun wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:51 pm
Except we don't know how much time he spent in the future?
Yes, we do. After giving Goku the medicine and returning to his future, he spent a few months there. Enough to make it AGE 785. We know the year changes because he says once he finds Cell's time machine that it came three years ahead of his time, which would be AGE 788.
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:51 pm
Do you even MATH?
How can 788-3=764?
Because the ONLY hard date we are given in the manga for the saga is the date of Cell's time machine: 788
Then we are EXPLICITLY told it's from 3, no 4, years after Future Trunks' time.

It's LITERALLY and MATHEMATICALLY impossible for Trunks coming from 764 with the numbers we are given.
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Not surprised, though. Considering you are the one who can't read properly (as you're saying I made a claim but that is nowhere to be seen) as well as quote messages properly. I would highly suggest you to read (and reread if necessary) my comment.

It is a fact that Trunks first arrives in the present from AGE 784 in his timeline. You can't deny it nor change it, it's official.
ankokudaishogun wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:51 pm
Except we NOW know that's false.
Not false at all. The three-year difference between present and Trunks' timeline will always exist now, which is why Toyotaro fortunately kept it by making Trunks to say "I'm going back seventeen years" in his manga. Not twenty, as it was originally in his first trip. And that's lucky if he had made Trunks to say "twenty years", it would cause problems.
Last edited by Grimlock on Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mad Swami
OMG CRAZY REG
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:01 am

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Mad Swami » Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:33 pm

Koitsukai wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:32 pm
This one is not really a manga retcon but a movie retcon, and just a gag, but still Toriyama retconning Toriyama.

EoZ has Goku telling Bulma he looks older, and she replies she might even ask Shenron to make her young again. We've seen this was the reason why Bulma was gathering the DBs in the Broly movie, and it was implied it wasn't the first time she was doing it.
Well maybe Goku catching on made her stop so she aged over the four years, but no I agree

Witty User Name
Banned
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Witty User Name » Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:22 pm

Maybe ''retcons'' wasn't the best technical term to be used for such plot points in the story, so what would be? :think:

ankokudaishogun
OMG CRAZY REG
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:07 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by ankokudaishogun » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:57 am

Witty User Name wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:22 pm
Maybe ''retcons'' wasn't the best technical term to be used for such plot points in the story, so what would be? :think:
VERY BROADLY speaking, it's the correct term. But it's almost never used in such broad way.

A better term in this instance would be "reveal". I think.
After giving Goku the medicine and returning to his future, he spent a few months there.
Source, please?

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:52 pm

Here. I said "he spent a few months" in my previous post, but we know more precisely how long Trunks spent there, around eight months to recharge the machine.

SSJgogeto
Regular
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by SSJgogeto » Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:28 pm

Curiously, seems like the time period is not fixed. In chapter 419 it's said that they took almost three years to reacharge the time machine.

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6318
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:14 pm

If you mean the three-year timeskip, then that's not what it's about/what was said. That three-year timeskip was "already planned" by Trunks. Right after he kills the androids, he says "there's one more left". He knew Cell would appear in three years (the panel about AGE 788 is when he figured that out), that's why he waited three years before making another trip.

SSJgogeto
Regular
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by SSJgogeto » Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:20 pm

This don't make sense, and looks a little like headcanon.

Post Reply