Should Toriyama's word be taken as absolute truth?

[Cetra]

I have no problem with someone who owns a franchise and has the power to create a universe out of nothing for that franchise to say "that's how it happened instead". I accept that someone makes up a universe and also no problem when someone says "I change the rules, x is how it has always been in-universe". There is a difference between someone not intentionally saying something different because he forgets as that would simply be a mistake or someone changing something because he either does not care for the detail as it has been before or even intentionally changes even though he is aware of some explanation already existing. And even out of a mistake someone is allowed to say "this is how it is".

[Eire]

His circus, his monkeys, his decision.
I reserve the right to tell that I like any particular version better.
That's not scientific article, nor Union of Krewo where one world can influence real life and cause academic debate and influence politics. Toriyama can change his mind, forget, rewrite. I can be angry, don't like something, say my opinion... but at the end of the day it changes nothing. That's not that DB Minus erased Father of Goku- every of them is true to it's own version of the story Think Marvel movies and comics- they are separated, but everyone is "canon" in own continuity.

[Low Tone G]

I take Toriyama's words to be true for a short amount of time till it will eventually become false or out-dated or simply wrong.

For example if he says Majin Buu is life-form who had long hybernation cycles and it isn't Bibidi's creation i will take it true untill he will come up with something else which will contradict that.

[tx3]

this discussions are non sense ..he is the creator he can do what he wants and its still the truth..there is no room for other options ..the only thing you can do is to like it or not.

[Gaffer Tape]

I got one. If Toriyama said Yamcha liked men, would you believe that? I mean, we all know Yamcha is or was afraid of women, right?

Given the reason you stated, sure. It doesn't seem impossible. He's always been a pretty boy.

Hell, Yamucha being a closeted homosexual would make more sense than the whole, "As of now he's always been a womanizer," shtick Toriyama pulled out of his ass to justify Blooma leaving him. Double hell, it would make him suddenly, randomly being a womanizer make sense!

[XanatosVanBadass]

I got one. If Toriyama said Yamcha liked men, would you believe that? I mean, we all know Yamcha is or was afraid of women, right?

Given the reason you stated, sure. It doesn't seem impossible. He's always been a pretty boy.

Hell, Yamucha being a closeted homosexual would make more sense than the whole, "As of now he's always been a womanizer," shtick Toriyama pulled out of his ass to justify Blooma leaving him. Double hell, it would make him suddenly, randomly being a womanizer make sense!

So, Yamucha is basically Mac?

[EXBadguy]

I got one. If Toriyama said Yamcha liked men, would you believe that? I mean, we all know Yamcha is or was afraid of women, right?

Given the reason you stated, sure. It doesn't seem impossible. He's always been a pretty boy.

Hell, Yamucha being a closeted homosexual would make more sense than the whole, "As of now he's always been a womanizer," shtick Toriyama pulled out of his ass to justify Blooma leaving him. Double hell, it would make him suddenly, randomly being a womanizer make sense!

Ah, Yamcha! The first gay or bisexual Z warrior.

[tx3]

please dont

[Hellspawn28]

I do since he's still the creator. I don't mind the recent retcons as they are not as bad as most fans make them out to be. Some fans act like Toriyama is just as bad as Todd Mcfarlane when it comes to retcons .

[VegettoEX]

please dont

Please don't what...? What are you trying to say?

[Friggin_Krillin]

Tell me you aren't being serious. Because... There is no backstory for him there.

With 'Backstory' i meant that we can take DB Minus, the TV Special and the little Mentioning in the Original Manga, as the Material to define Bardock as a Character and his Origin. DB Minus is a Recent One and Toriyamas more direct Take on the Matter.

[Dyno]

With 'Backstory' i meant that we can take DB Minus, the TV Special and the little Mentioning in the Original Manga, as the Material to define Bardock as a Character and his Origin. DB Minus is a Recent One and Toriyamas more direct Take on the Matter.

We indeed can take Dragon Ball Minus, but that crappy-and-done-without-any-professionalism chapter is not, in anyway, Bardock's backstory. Bardock deserves much more than that and still he receives that lazy work? No way.
With Dragon Ball Minus we can only say, for a little, how it was the last month of the Saiyans. And with the panel in 307, we can only say Bardock was given a little-to-nothing glory by fighting Freeza alone. But both aren't valid to state they are Bardock's backstory.

[Zephyr]

If he can't stay consistent, then his authority in making new decisions is in question.

He should have relinquished his authority during the Red Ribbon Army story arc then.

by competent supervision that could reign him in and keep things more or less in order

The problem is that you're peddling this extreme subjective assessment as a fact. As far as I can see, things are more or less in order. I've yet to see a single "colossal fuck up" that contradicts the manga. Can you quantify exactly what you mean by "colossal fuck up"?

[rereboy]

Hell, Yamucha being a closeted homosexual would make more sense than the whole, "As of now he's always been a womanizer," shtick Toriyama pulled out of his ass to justify Blooma leaving him. Double hell, it would make him suddenly, randomly being a womanizer make sense!

Yamcha has been stated as someone who enjoys female attention other than his girlfriend a little too much all the way back in volume 6. And there were further mentions of them having trouble in their relationship. So, it hardly falls out of nowhere.

Just because Bulma seems male attention from hot guys other than her boyfriend too much, it doesn't mean that Yamcha doesn't enjoy female attention other than his girlfriend a little too much.

[Gaffer Tape]

Yamcha has been stated as someone who enjoys female attention other than his girlfriend a little too much all the way back in volume 6. And there were further mentions of them having trouble in their relationship. So, it hardly falls out of nowhere.

Just because Bulma seems male attention from hot guys other than her boyfriend too much, it doesn't mean that Yamcha doesn't enjoy female attention other than his girlfriend a little too much.

Remember that line in the original Star Wars where Aunt Beru tells Uncle Owen that Luke has too much of his father in him, to which Owen replies, "That's what I'm afraid of"? And, how, ever since The Empire Strikes Back came out, fans have assumed that was a clever bit of foreshadowing to Luke's father's true identity, when, in fact, it is not? That, in its original context, it's simply referring to how Luke's father ran off on adventures with Obi-Wan and got himself killed?

That's the same thing as here. It's a retroactive perception bias. It's when a retcon causes you to imbue previous scenes with information that didn't exist at the time solely because it coincidentally manages to line up with new information. Nowhere in volume 6 is it said that Yamucha enjoys female attention from other than his girlfriend a little too much. Nowhere. It's said, by Blooma's own mother, that girls like to give Yamucha attention, and it makes Blooma jealous. Yamucha's behavior or reaction is never so much as mentioned. And the scene gives no indication there's any reason to take that information at anything other than face value. It is only when you take Trunks's line from much later in the series and retroactively apply it to earlier scenes do those scenes even remotely look like "evidence." But it's only because of that bias.

[SonEric84]

please dont

Please don't what...? What are you trying to say?

I don't want to make assumptions, but I think "please don't" was probably in response to the idea of Yamcha being "closeted"..there seems to be an unfortunate trend with this guy's posts.


As for the topic, well, Toriyama did create the series, so technically whatever he deems canon is truth, whether we like it or not. But hey, nothing wrong with having your own personal interpretations and ideas.

[Big Momma]

It's a retroactive perception bias. It's when a retcon causes you to imbue previous scenes with information that didn't exist at the time solely because it coincidentally manages to line up with new information.

I feel like a lot of the fanbase could benefit from learning this concept.

[djkalteraphine]

Dragon Ball is not mine. It's his. He created it. I follow his words no matter how they conflict with my understandings. I always overwright my old "canon" with newly given info.

"As a passionate believer in the democracy of reading, I don’t think it’s the task of the author of a book to tell the reader what it means. The meaning of a story emerges in the meeting between the words on the page and the thoughts in the reader’s mind. So when people ask me what I meant by this story, or what was the message I was trying to convey in that one, I have to explain that I’m not going to explain. Anyway, I’m not in the message business; I’m in the Once upon a time business." -Philip Pullman

Once an author has finished their work, it is no longer theirs, but belongs to its audience. That's what makes it art and not history. You'll find when asked for extra information about a work of theirs, most authors will phrase things like "I think that" or "I might have written it this way if" etc. Toriyama's interviews are translated, so getting his tone isn't something I can do since I don't speak Japanese, but I highly doubt the man truly cares if you accept whether or not his retcons are the "true" canon. Reading is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

[rereboy]

Remember that line in the original Star Wars where Aunt Beru tells Uncle Owen that Luke has too much of his father in him, to which Owen replies, "That's what I'm afraid of"? And, how, ever since The Empire Strikes Back came out, fans have assumed that was a clever bit of foreshadowing to Luke's father's true identity, when, in fact, it is not? That, in its original context, it's simply referring to how Luke's father ran off on adventures with Obi-Wan and got himself killed?

That's the same thing as here. It's a retroactive perception bias. It's when a retcon causes you to imbue previous scenes with information that didn't exist at the time solely because it coincidentally manages to line up with new information. Nowhere in volume 6 is it said that Yamucha enjoys female attention from other than his girlfriend a little too much. Nowhere. It's said, by Blooma's own mother, that girls like to give Yamucha attention, and it makes Blooma jealous. Yamucha's behavior or reaction is never so much as mentioned. And the scene gives no indication there's any reason to take that information at anything other than face value. It is only when you take Trunks's line from much later in the series and retroactively apply it to earlier scenes do those scenes even remotely look like "evidence." But it's only because of that bias.

I completely disagree and I truly think you are interpreting things based on your preference.

What you are saying now is way more of a stretch than just thinking that Toriyama thought it would be cool to have another saiyan and, since he had already portrayed their relationship as unstable several times, and even had implied before that Yamcha enjoyed other female attention, he decided to empathize that aspect as Bulma's main justification to moving to Vegeta.

You are literally saying that what was in Volume 6, and the later mentions of the instability of their relationship, are irrelevant and mere coincidences that can only be exclusively Bulma's fault and that the end of their relationship and Bulma's justification still falls out of nowhere.

I see no logic in that. Toriyama probably wasn't thinking in going somewhere with it when he wrote that in Volume 6 and the later mentions of their instability, but that doesn't mean that we must interpret those instances as Bulma's exclusive fault or that they are irrelevant in-universe for the end of their relationship and Bulma's justification to moving on.

[Gaffer Tape]

In that case, please tell me where it actually says in any line prior to Trunks's that Yamucha enjoys the attention of women other than his girlfriend. Give me one example where Yamucha is either shown to be doing so, or any character actually says that that is the case. Because I guarantee you it never happens. Not even Blooma ever says it.

In fact, let's take the dialogue right now, and you tell me where it says this. I'll just use the Viz translation, since it happens to be handy. I don't think it takes any liberties in this case, but if it does, feel free to provide another translation:

Goku: Hey, what about Yamcha and Oolong?
Mother: Yamcha, and Oolong, and Pu'ar are all in school--but of course, this child is fighting with Yamcha right now! He's so handsome, you know, and she simply can't stand the fact that he's popular with the girls...
Bulma: Will you shut up?!! I'm gonna go look for Dragon Balls with Son Goku again!!!! And this time, I'm gonna find a way better guy than Yamcha!!

So with just the facts here, how am I adding things through interpretation? Where is it said that Yamucha is enjoying or seeking out attention? Because I'm certainly not seeing it. After her mother's explanation, does Blooma even attempt to refute it and place the blame on Yamucha? Nope. There is absolutely nothing on the surface level of this scene that implies any of that, and there's no reason for anyone to think so without the later added context. On its own, it simply isn't there.