Non-thread-worthy discussions

Discussion regarding the entirety of the franchise in a general (meta) sense, including such aspects as: production, trends, merchandise, fan culture, and more.

Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff

User avatar
SuperSaiyaManZ94
I Live Here
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:01 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by SuperSaiyaManZ94 » Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:00 am

In Movie 14, she says she's turning thirty-eight years old, the year is AGE 778. If we do some basic math, AGE 778 - 38 = AGE 740, we discover that Bulma was born in a different year and it means she was nine years old when she met Goku.
This is clearly an inconsistency with the timeline, because in both the OG manga and anime Bulma is clearly a teenager so you can't really reconcile it with the dates set by her line in Battle of Gods. There's no way she could've possibly been nine, given the latter two unmistakably depict her as a sixteen year old.
DB collection related goals as of now:

1.) Find decent priced copy of Dragon Box Z Vol. 4 (Done)

2.) Collect rest of manga

3.) Get rest of Daizenshuu (2-7)

User avatar
QuakingStar
Regular
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by QuakingStar » Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:29 pm

Grimlock wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:44 am
QuakingStar wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:51 amI have to keep reminding myself that old information cannot retcon new information.
Hey, uh... A little question: the panel below establishes that Bulma is sixteen years old, and while Goku's age will change at some point in the future, Bulma's age in this specific point in time remained the same until the very end of the manga.

So, Bulma was born in AGE 733, therefore being sixteen years old in AGE 749.

Image

In Movie 14, she says she's turning thirty-eight years old, the year is AGE 778. If we do some basic math, AGE 778 - 38 = AGE 740, we discover that Bulma was born in a different year and it means she was nine years old when she met Goku.

My question is, just out of curiosity, which information do you take as fact? What it's said in the manga or what it's said in the movie?
She was clearly lying about her actual age so her original age remains. Did she not get mad when somebody accused of her lying about it? We know for a fact she's older than Goku so in this case how is her lying a retcon?

You also don't seem to understand the point of that. Retcons can only be from new information, and only if its actually meant to be factual and not a character LYING ABOUT THEIR AGE. Especially given we are literally given Bulmas age in the Jaco manga which comes out irl after the BoG Saga and movie didn't it?

User avatar
VegettoEX
Kanzenshuu Co-Owner & Administrator
Posts: 17543
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:10 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by VegettoEX » Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:39 pm

Also want to point out there's a pretty good theory that Bulma's age mention in Battle of Gods might be (an uncorrected/non-adjusted) leftover from Yusuke Watanabe's original script when things would have been set during Kuririn and 18's wedding. If Bulma is born in Age 733 and we assume said wedding took place some time prior to what we see of the Boo arc in Age 774 (which itself places Bulma at roughly 40ish in that arc), that line all works out. Marron is born in Age 771, so if we think of the wedding as being in Age 770, that easily puts Bulma at 37... turning 38. Done and done. It's not great to explain it away out-of-universe with nothing in-universe to fix it up, but it's the best we have.
:: [| Mike "VegettoEX" LaBrie |] ::
:: [| Kanzenshuu - Co-Founder/Administrator, Podcast Host, News Manager (note: our "job" titles are arbitrary and meaningless) |] ::
:: [| Website: January 1998 |] :: [| Podcast: November 2005 |] :: [| Fusion: April 2012 |] :: [| Wiki: 20XX |] ::

User avatar
Koitsukai
I Live Here
Posts: 4276
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:02 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by Koitsukai » Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:06 pm

Actually, I kinda like Bulma being self-conscious about her age and lying about it. Later on, we’ll learn that she’s interested in, or has been, using the DBs to de-age herself in a ‘natural’ fashion.

Like Mike said, it's probably a leftover from a previous script and wasn't intended to be a lie - I don't believe they started a joke in 2013 to get to the punchline in 2018- but it does add up.

User avatar
MasenkoHA
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6201
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by MasenkoHA » Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:07 pm

QuakingStar wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:29 pm
Grimlock wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:44 am
QuakingStar wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:51 amI have to keep reminding myself that old information cannot retcon new information.
Hey, uh... A little question: the panel below establishes that Bulma is sixteen years old, and while Goku's age will change at some point in the future, Bulma's age in this specific point in time remained the same until the very end of the manga.

So, Bulma was born in AGE 733, therefore being sixteen years old in AGE 749.

Image

In Movie 14, she says she's turning thirty-eight years old, the year is AGE 778. If we do some basic math, AGE 778 - 38 = AGE 740, we discover that Bulma was born in a different year and it means she was nine years old when she met Goku.

My question is, just out of curiosity, which information do you take as fact? What it's said in the manga or what it's said in the movie?
She was clearly lying about her actual age so her original age remains. Did she not get mad when somebody accused of her lying about it? We know for a fact she's older than Goku so in this case how is her lying a retcon?

You also don't seem to understand the point of that. Retcons can only be from new information, and only if its actually meant to be factual and not a character LYING ABOUT THEIR AGE. Especially given we are literally given Bulmas age in the Jaco manga which comes out irl after the BoG Saga and movie didn't it?
Even if we assume Bulma is lying about her age (and 38 is a weird age to lie about but I digress) Mai says matter of factly that she's turning 40 in the spring and that clearly isn't her lying . That would make her the same age as Goku (assuming BoG takes place 5 years after Boo was destroyed).

All of the revival era (up until Super Hero anyways) pretty much operates under cartoon logic where everyone is trapped in the age they were during the Boo saga...except Gohan and Videl who need to be old enough to get married and have Pan.

User avatar
Grimlock
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8242
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Cybertron.

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by Grimlock » Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:14 pm

QuakingStar wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:29 pmShe was clearly lying about her actual age so her original age remains. (...) We know for a fact she's older than Goku so in this case how is her lying a retcon?
I don't know anything about this "lying about her age". This is, as far as I'm concerned, a fancy little "headcanon" people came up with, but never actually addressed in the series that she was lying.

However, I would like you to take it at face value (just as many of you take Beerus line "Goku being weaker than Freeza" at face value and that the series never addressed that Beerus, and by extension me, is wrong. Which I remember being one of the arguments used against me), so the same approach here, no assumptions or workarounds. It's a fact that Bulma says she's thirty-eight years old, and that cannot, has not and did not change at all. With that out of the way, I will conclude that, based on your response and ignoring your "headcanon", you take as fact what the manga said, right?

Then wouldn't you agree with me that you're kind of contradicting yourself? You see, what is "retcon" anyway? One piece of information superseding the other? "The latest one takes priority over the older one" I believe it's the "norm" everyone (?) agrees with? However, by considering the manga and ignoring the movie, you are, by the nature of "retcon", superseding things anyway, taking one over the other as priority, you're just doing it inversely, which goes against exactly what you said in that quote and in another occasion. Shouldn't you, you know... Go along with the movie and say that Bulma is indeed thirty-eight years old?
QuakingStar wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:29 pmEspecially given we are literally given Bulmas age in the Jaco manga which comes out irl after the BoG Saga and movie didn't it?
It's awesome that you brought up Jaco, the Galactic Patrolman, I would have done that myself. If we follow your "philosophy" that "new information must always take precedence", then Bulma is indeed thirty-eight years old by the time Movie 14 happens, and she would have been born in AGE 740, as I already stated, but the thing is... The Jaco, the Galactic Patrolman manga takes place in AGE 739, that's one year before Bulma was even born, how would you explain that same manga depicting a five-(turning six)-year-old Bulma?
Goodbye friend. You are weak, so you must be destroyed!

~ War of the Dinobots ~

User avatar
Noah
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8160
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:56 pm
Location: Virtual World

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by Noah » Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:33 pm

Having been in an accident that resulted in some broken ribs and as a DB maniac, I got myself thinking about characters who had this same injury... Goku two times arc in the Saiyan when he was stepped by Raditz and Vegeta, one other time training in the Namek arc... And I don't know, I remember someone having that in OG DB, can't figure out that now... :think:
MasenkoHA wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:07 pm Even if we assume Bulma is lying about her age (and 38 is a weird age to lie about but I digress) Mai says matter of factly that she's turning 40 in the spring and that clearly isn't her lying . That would make her the same age as Goku (assuming BoG takes place 5 years after Boo was destroyed).
BoG, the 2013 movie yes. Now, BoG the 2015 DBS anime arc I remember being 4 ou 6 months after Boo.
Last edited by Noah on Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
乃亜

Top 10 DB/Z/GT Songs

Are we too old to enjoy new Dragon Ball movies/series?

User avatar
VegettoEX
Kanzenshuu Co-Owner & Administrator
Posts: 17543
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:10 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by VegettoEX » Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:38 pm

Noah wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:33 pm BoG, the 2013 movie yes. Now, BoG the 2015 DBS anime arc I remember being 4 ou 6 months after Boo.
Folks keep confusing this, no doubt due to one of the early Weekly Shonen Jump promotional pieces that wasn't specific enough.

In the original series -- the original manga, as penned by Toriyama, back in 1995, twenty years before Super was a consideration -- it's noted that six months after the defeat of Boo, that regular everyday folks' memories of that battle were erased. It's all right there in chapter 517 (twice, actually: first Goku suggests they hide Boo away for six months until the Dragon Balls can reactivate, and then six months later, they actually follow through on that wish).

Dragon Ball Super episode 1 then literally begins with a recap of these particular story beats with actual footage from the original show (well, "original show" being Kai in this case). It then goes on to say "Some time has passed", which was (erroneously / not accurately enough) adapted in the simulcast subtitles as "A few months rolled by".

Goku vs. Beerus is not six months after the defeat of Boo, not in any version (movie/TV/manga); it's always been the same four years later.
:: [| Mike "VegettoEX" LaBrie |] ::
:: [| Kanzenshuu - Co-Founder/Administrator, Podcast Host, News Manager (note: our "job" titles are arbitrary and meaningless) |] ::
:: [| Website: January 1998 |] :: [| Podcast: November 2005 |] :: [| Fusion: April 2012 |] :: [| Wiki: 20XX |] ::

User avatar
LoganForkHands73
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:54 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by LoganForkHands73 » Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:40 pm

I mean, I always interpreted the birthday scene in Battle of Gods as Bulma lying about her age. I thought that was the whole joke, tying into her insecurity about being middle aged. :think:

User avatar
MasenkoHA
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6201
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by MasenkoHA » Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:53 pm

LoganForkHands73 wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:40 pm I mean, I always interpreted the birthday scene in Battle of Gods as Bulma lying about her age. I thought that was the whole joke, tying into her insecurity about being middle aged. :think:
Still wouldn't explain why Mai says she's turning 40. When the joke there is she's being too honest about her age.


Guys, I don't think Bulma lying about being 38 was the intent. I think Toriyama and/or Toei just really really suck at math and stopped paying attention to Bulma's age a long time ago.

Or see my "Time passes but characters who aren't Gohan and Videl are stuck in their Boo saga ages" theory.

User avatar
QuakingStar
Regular
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by QuakingStar » Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:25 pm

Grimlock wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:14 pm
QuakingStar wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:29 pmShe was clearly lying about her actual age so her original age remains. (...) We know for a fact she's older than Goku so in this case how is her lying a retcon?
I don't know anything about this "lying about her age". This is, as far as I'm concerned, a fancy little "headcanon" people came up with, but never actually addressed in the series that she was lying.

However, I would like you to take it at face value (just as many of you take Beerus line "Goku being weaker than Freeza" at face value and that the series never addressed that Beerus, and by extension me, is wrong. Which I remember being one of the arguments used against me), so the same approach here, no assumptions or workarounds. It's a fact that Bulma says she's thirty-eight years old, and that cannot, has not and did not change at all. With that out of the way, I will conclude that, based on your response and ignoring your "headcanon", you take as fact what the manga said, right?

Then wouldn't you agree with me that you're kind of contradicting yourself? You see, what is "retcon" anyway? One piece of information superseding the other? "The latest one takes priority over the older one" I believe it's the "norm" everyone (?) agrees with? However, by considering the manga and ignoring the movie, you are, by the nature of "retcon", superseding things anyway, taking one over the other as priority, you're just doing it inversely, which goes against exactly what you said in that quote and in another occasion. Shouldn't you, you know... Go along with the movie and say that Bulma is indeed thirty-eight years old?
QuakingStar wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:29 pmEspecially given we are literally given Bulmas age in the Jaco manga which comes out irl after the BoG Saga and movie didn't it?
It's awesome that you brought up Jaco, the Galactic Patrolman, I would have done that myself. If we follow your "philosophy" that "new information must always take precedence", then Bulma is indeed thirty-eight years old by the time Movie 14 happens, and she would have been born in AGE 740, as I already stated, but the thing is... The Jaco, the Galactic Patrolman manga takes place in AGE 739, that's one year before Bulma was even born, how would you explain that same manga depicting a five-(turning six)-year-old Bulma?
They insinuated she was lying. Again Dragon Ball is filled with errors and retcons and continuity issues, but something as simple as her being clearly older than Goku, along with her lying about her age is in character and already established in stone, on panel beforehand. You could go ahead and just roll with everything as you seem to want to do, and in this case the Broly Movie takes place before DBS began. Why stop there?

Also, this has been brought up before apparently and VegettoEX said this
VegettoEX wrote: Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:18 pm This is one of those things that gets held up by both sides:

"Toriyama worked on the movie, so it's real/canonical!"

"There's something wrong with it, so that means it doesn't count!"

There are plenty of retcons in the manga itself, nevermind outright errors (like the less-than-a-year-between-wishes I mentioned in another thread today, Trunks naming #19 & #20, etc.). So what's that mean? How do you reconcile that? There are errors everywhere, so if your definition of "truth" or "canonical" means "there are no errors within the product," you have to discount the manga itself.

Furthermore, we have no idea WHO is the one who wrote Bulma's age in the dialog. We know there was a script that Toriyama came in and essentially rewrote. Was this part of it? Was it there beforehand? Who knows? We sure don't! Therefore, you can't hold up this "Toriyama wrote it!" as... well, anything. You're basically left to reconcile it in-universe as best you can, which usually amounts to, "I guess she's just lying about her age."
and this from Herms
Herms wrote: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:20 am
Angelus wrote:/offtopic: Mai, Pilaf's associate, is born 737 (making her 41 in BoG) according to DBZ wiki. Which makes her younger than Bulma even back in DB, yet Mai looks older even back then. Huh?
No official source states Mai's birth year. She says she's 41 in BoG, so since BoG is officially set in Age 778, the DB wikia people calculated backwards to get Age 737 as her birth year. Logical enough, except Mai saying she's 41 is as problematic as Bulma saying she's 38. Odds are, both ages are based on the same mistake. Like you said, Mai seems older than Bulma during the start of the series, so it seems BoG went with the idea of her being 3 years older. But since Bulma should really be about 45 by the time BoG is set (going not just by the official timeline, but by various statements throughout the series), if we stick with the "3 years older" idea then Mai should likewise be about 48. If we correct Bulma's age to 45 but keep Mai's at 41 (as the wikia folks do), this makes Mai 4 years younger than Bulma. Since Bulma is 16 at the start of DB, this would make Mai 12 when she first appears. Which seems totally wrong, unless Mai grew up about as fast as Piccolo.
So your idea is that just because some things don't or do work with the retcons at all, that ALL or NONE of the retcons should be ignored? Which is it Grim. We should blindly accept all retcons, or blindly ignore all retcons?

User avatar
Grimlock
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8242
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Cybertron.

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by Grimlock » Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:08 am

QuakingStar wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:25 pmThey insinuated she was lying.
Then I'm gonna need a source. If "lying" is an official thing, I'm sure you will be able to provide some evidence. I don't remember anyone "insinuating" anything.
QuakingStar wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:25 pmAgain Dragon Ball is filled with errors and retcons and continuity issues,
Indeed it is, and your stance on this is that whenever old information gets "retconned", they become obsolete in favor of the new one without doing some critical thinking before. I'm just showing you that this is not really how you should deal with the situation.
QuakingStar wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:25 pmSo your idea is that just because some things don't or do work with the retcons at all, that ALL or NONE of the retcons should be ignored? Which is it Grim. We should blindly accept all retcons, or blindly ignore all retcons?
No, no. You don't get to make those kind of questions to me. Not after I said this during a discussion that you were involved:
Grimlock wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:21 pm(...) What I do know is that even if that's the case, it still isn't a reason for us to not check anything before stating it's true.
And, if you had gone back merely two pages ago, in this very same thread, look at what you would find:
SupremeKai25 wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:40 pmIf Bulma's age was stated to be X and BoG said her age was Y, that would be a retcon, No? What's so strange or surprising about that? Retcons happen all the time, that's no reason to ignore the most recent statement.
Grimlock wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:15 pmThis just goes to show that we shouldn't go blind into any new information and accept it as true without any critical thinking before. "Retcon" does happen all the time, yes, but that's exactly why we should be cautious about it, and if needed, to ignore the most recent statement if it brings more problems than it solves.
As you can see, that was months ago. People do accept blindly new information, and surprise, surprise... I was there to tell them not to do that.
I seemingly happen to be the only one in this forum vocal about how people should be more open-minded (see mainly "canon" debates) and more flexible. Things aren't so "black and white" and most certainly they aren't that easy too, which is why one should think before becoming so adamant and clutched to their own view. And you do understand what I mean when I say "flexible" because you were shown to be willing to retcon the latest information (Movie 14) in favor of the old information (manga). You don't really follow what you say yourself, so how can you (or anyone, for that matter) say that "old information can't retcon new information" is beyond me.

But to answer your question directly (and reiterating what I said in the quotes above): neither. We should be cautious and do our own research before stating something it's true, false, what is or isn't "retconned", etc.
Goodbye friend. You are weak, so you must be destroyed!

~ War of the Dinobots ~

User avatar
QuakingStar
Regular
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by QuakingStar » Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:20 am

Grimlock wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:08 am
QuakingStar wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:25 pmThey insinuated she was lying.
Then I'm gonna need a source. If "lying" is an official thing, I'm sure you will be able to provide some evidence. I don't remember anyone "insinuating" anything.
QuakingStar wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:25 pmAgain Dragon Ball is filled with errors and retcons and continuity issues,
Indeed it is, and your stance on this is that whenever old information gets "retconned", they become obsolete in favor of the new one without doing some critical thinking before. I'm just showing you that this is not really how you should deal with the situation.
QuakingStar wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:25 pmSo your idea is that just because some things don't or do work with the retcons at all, that ALL or NONE of the retcons should be ignored? Which is it Grim. We should blindly accept all retcons, or blindly ignore all retcons?
No, no. You don't get to make those kind of questions to me. Not after I said this during a discussion that you were involved:
Grimlock wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:21 pm(...) What I do know is that even if that's the case, it still isn't a reason for us to not check anything before stating it's true.
And, if you had gone back merely two pages ago, in this very same thread, look at what you would find:
SupremeKai25 wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:40 pmIf Bulma's age was stated to be X and BoG said her age was Y, that would be a retcon, No? What's so strange or surprising about that? Retcons happen all the time, that's no reason to ignore the most recent statement.
Grimlock wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:15 pmThis just goes to show that we shouldn't go blind into any new information and accept it as true without any critical thinking before. "Retcon" does happen all the time, yes, but that's exactly why we should be cautious about it, and if needed, to ignore the most recent statement if it brings more problems than it solves.
As you can see, that was months ago. People do accept blindly new information, and surprise, surprise... I was there to tell them not to do that.
I seemingly happen to be the only one in this forum vocal about how people should be more open-minded (see mainly "canon" debates) and more flexible. Things aren't so "black and white" and most certainly they aren't that easy too, which is why one should think before becoming so adamant and clutched to their own view. And you do understand what I mean when I say "flexible" because you were shown to be willing to retcon the latest information (Movie 14) in favor of the old information (manga). You don't really follow what you say yourself, so how can you (or anyone, for that matter) say that "old information can't retcon new information" is beyond me.

But to answer your question directly (and reiterating what I said in the quotes above): neither. We should be cautious and do our own research before stating something it's true, false, what is or isn't "retconned", etc.
Here's her reaction to being asked how old she was, clearly it's a touchy subject further reinforcing she more than likely lied about her age

https://youtu.be/K2avk7kvmYU

https://youtu.be/aEFrvQsIRuw

It seems something going case by case basis is out of the question for you, and you want to use Bulmas age of all things as some way to try and reinforce.... what exactly? Were you upset that I don't blindly accept your nonsense? Or is this about the Super Saiyan God being connected to the Super Saiyan forms while at the same time being able to be stacked with the Super Saiyan forms? Did I bother you with that?? "No, no. You don't get to make those kind of questions to me." Here's the kicker bud, I can do that where and when I please and there's not a thing you can do to stop that. So this condescending tone you have going on and thinking you can tell me what I can and cannot do on here isn't going to serve you at all. It seems to me, that me not agreeing with your takes on these things bothered you.

I also want to make one thing clear to you. I will never take your input as valuable or as serious as I would Herms or VegettoEX's who btw also seemed to think it was more likely Bulma was lying. You're the one who wants to think it's more likely she didn't just to fit your agenda.

User avatar
Grimlock
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8242
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Cybertron.

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by Grimlock » Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:50 am

QuakingStar wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:20 amyou want to use Bulmas age of all things as some way to try and reinforce.... what exactly?
That you can't go out there screaming "old information can't retcon new information". As this debate proved, using Bulma's age as a tool, there are occasions in which the old information can (and must) take priority over new information, and that makes your claim a flawed one.

Know that you can stick to this "philosophy" of yours, you're entitled to always prioritize new information over old one just fine. But just like with people who think there's a canon in Dragon Ball, there's absolutely nothing that states that "old information can't retcon new information". So... You may want to treat it as your personal opinion, rather than passing it as a fact from now on (just an advice).
QuakingStar wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:20 amI also want to make one thing clear to you. I will never take your input as valuable or as serious as I would Herms or VegettoEX's who btw also seemed to think it was more likely Bulma was lying. You're the one who wants to think it's more likely she didn't just to fit your agenda.
I see. But here's some breaking news: I also think Bulma is lying about her age. I don't take her saying she's thirty-eight years old at face value as her real birth year dictates she is actually forty-five years old in that timeframe, and I stick to that.

The difference between you and me is that I never and would never say weird stuff like "old information can't retcon new information". If I or anyone were to stick to that idea, we would be forced to accept she is thirty-eight in Movie 14, and then we'd have to deal with a fucked up chronology. I am quite comfortable ignoring the latest information in favor of the old one if the latter makes more sense.


Anyway, it's just too bad I can't have a more challenging debate like this with you. I mean, I saw this coming as you have lost your temper twice before, but even so... Still, you satisfied my curiosity so I thank you for your time and for proving the point. And while this was a relative short debate, it was fun nonetheless. :thumbup:

(Hey, a friendly tip: you need to work on your temper. I assume you don't often have this kind of conversation, do you? You really get mad rather easy. Forgive me if I said anything you didn't like it. This method of proving point, putting to the test, might seem a little bit "harsh", but I still believe it's the best way to do it, as it brings out all the flaws and issues which makes it better to discuss over).
Goodbye friend. You are weak, so you must be destroyed!

~ War of the Dinobots ~

User avatar
QuakingStar
Regular
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by QuakingStar » Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:01 am

Grimlock wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:50 am
QuakingStar wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:20 amyou want to use Bulmas age of all things as some way to try and reinforce.... what exactly?
That you can't go out there screaming "old information can't retcon new information". As this debate proved, using Bulma's age as a tool, there are occasions in which the old information can (and must) take priority over new information, and that makes your claim a flawed one.

Know that you can stick to this "philosophy" of yours, you're entitled to always prioritize new information over old one just fine. But just like with people who think there's a canon in Dragon Ball, there's absolutely nothing that states that "old information can't retcon new information". So... You may want to treat it as your personal opinion, rather than passing it as a fact from now on (just an advice).
QuakingStar wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:20 amI also want to make one thing clear to you. I will never take your input as valuable or as serious as I would Herms or VegettoEX's who btw also seemed to think it was more likely Bulma was lying. You're the one who wants to think it's more likely she didn't just to fit your agenda.
I see. But here's some breaking news: I also think Bulma is lying about her age. I don't take her saying she's thirty-eight years old at face value as her real birth year dictates she is actually forty-five years old in that timeframe, and I stick to that.

The difference between you and me is that I never and would never say weird stuff like "old information can't retcon new information". If I or anyone were to stick to that idea, we would be forced to accept she is thirty-eight in Movie 14, and then we'd have to deal with a fucked up chronology. I am quite comfortable ignoring the latest information in favor of the old one if the latter makes more sense.


Anyway, it's just too bad I can't have a more challenging debate like this with you. I mean, I saw this coming as you have lost your temper twice before, but even so... Still, you satisfied my curiosity so I thank you for your time and for proving the point. And while this was a relative short debate, it was fun nonetheless. :thumbup:

(Hey, a friendly tip: you need to work on your temper. I assume you don't often have this kind of conversation, do you? You really get mad rather easy. Forgive me if I said anything you didn't like it. This method of proving point, putting to the test, might seem a little bit "harsh", but I still believe it's the best way to do it, as it brings out all the flaws and issues which makes it better to discuss over).
Hey little bud, you clearly don't know what a retcon is lmaooo

noun
(in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

verb
revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.

So how can old info retcon new info?? You did all that for nothing. :thumbup:

You even brought my comment I made to somebody else to a different thread to try and debate it when it's factual. Old info cannot retcon new info, that's not how retcons work. I would say nice try, but it really wasn't a nice try. :lol:

User avatar
LoganForkHands73
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:54 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by LoganForkHands73 » Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:37 pm

Bruh, I'm seeing points on both sides here that I agree with but y'all insist on being as acerbic and unproductive as humanly possible. Have a day off.

I agree with QuakingStar that retcons are by definition about new information contravening old information, so it makes no semantic sense for the inverse to be true. The only way it works is if they "re-retcon" the old information back in at a later date, but it's still just another retcon. But I also agree with Grimlock that new retcons don't always take precedent over the old information and you can safely ignore it if you want. It should be left up for fans to subjectively decide. For the sake of sanity, it makes way more sense to just accept that Bulma was somehow wrong about her age in Battle of Gods (whether she was purposefully lying -- which again I believe as it's 100% in-character for her -- matters not), as it would cause way too much of a headache to try and reconcile that. Toriyama has admitted several times that he doesn't care to remember all the precise details of his own universe, plus he's definitely not above basic human error, so why should everyone else be beholden to every contradictory statement he makes in every interview that hardly anyone will even read (e.g. his statements retconning Majin Buu's origins, Dr. Gero's son being the basis for #16, the Saiyan elite hierarchy, etc)?

User avatar
Grimlock
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8242
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Cybertron.

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by Grimlock » Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:05 pm

Yeah, but the definition presented to us here contains one very interesting word: "Typically".

I don't think I'll need to explain what "typically" means, but if you don't like calling "retcon" the act of superseding new information for the old one (because it's an unusual thing to do, and I'd agree to that), you might as well come up with a new name for that. Whatever makes everybody sleeps better at night. I just wanted to show that it's quite possible (and sometimes necessary) to ignore the latest information in favor of the old one, I would call that productive actually, given that I accomplished what I wanted to do.



Anyway, I have been meaning to raise this point for a while now: Why is Gohan, of all people, the one to say something about Saiyans growth in Dragon Ball Super Super Hero?

In Movie 2, Gohan comments upon seeing Goten and Trunks how Saiyans growth works, but how does he know that? Firstly, Gohan didn't grow up with a Saiyan of his age. Secondly, Gohan had a "normal" (human-like) growth himself, at least up until his tenth birthday. The only ones who know about how this are Jaco, Tights and Omori. I doubt Tights said anything about it, so maybe Jaco did? Have Gohan and Jaco ever exchanged "hello" to one another? There's also Vegeta but he never said anything about this, as far as we know.
Goodbye friend. You are weak, so you must be destroyed!

~ War of the Dinobots ~

User avatar
ZeroNeonix
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:35 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by ZeroNeonix » Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:18 pm

Grimlock wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:05 pmIn Movie 2, Gohan comments upon seeing Goten and Trunks how Saiyans growth works, but how does he know that? Firstly, Gohan didn't grow up with a Saiyan of his age. Secondly, Gohan had a "normal" (human-like) growth himself, at least up until his tenth birthday. The only ones who know about how this are Jaco, Tights and Omori. I doubt Tights said anything about it, so maybe Jaco did? Have Gohan and Jaco ever exchanged "hello" to one another? There's also Vegeta but he never said anything about this, as far as we know.
Well, Gohan's comment is in keeping with how we've seen Saiyan characters grow before. Goku had a massive growth spurt after training with Kami. Gohan grew twice his size in between the Cell and Buu arcs. The only contradiction to the idea of the sudden Saiyan growth spurt (that I'm aware of) is the TV special starring Future Trunks, but Toriyama wasn't directly involved with that, unless I'm mistaken.

Let's just be happy that Goten and Trunks don't look like little kids anymore. lol

User avatar
Koitsukai
I Live Here
Posts: 4276
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:02 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by Koitsukai » Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:07 pm

Pretty simple, really. He knows how and when he grew up, he knows how his brother and Trunks did, so there it is. He might've said "saiyans" but he's clearly talking about the two hybrids in question.

User avatar
MasenkoHA
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6201
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Non-thread-worthy discussions

Post by MasenkoHA » Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:15 pm

ZeroNeonix wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:18 pm [Gohan grew twice his size in between the Cell and Buu arcs.
.......

Because he went from 9 to 16. . Gohan's maturity didn't look any different tham a regular earthling . Its not like his dad who went from looking like a 10 year old at age 15 to looking his age at 18.

Post Reply