"GT = Goku Time" is an exaggeration.

[ABED]

He's NOT the reason Gohan wins. Gohan has the power, it was only a momentary distraction. Helpful, but you are giving Vegeta WAY too much credit.

Vegeta helped out mostly by giving Goku time by being a punching bag. He does the exact same thing in GT in the final fight. Had he not been there, Goku would've died earlier and wouldn't have been able to gather the energy for the Genki Dama.

[Timetraveller]

You just contradicted yourself lmao. I just point out the "in-universe motivations, decisions and appearance" of Vegeta written by Toriyama are not what you claimed they are.

Nah, there's no contradiction. Vegeta's in-universe reason for not wearing armor in the buu saga doesn't change the fact that his saiyan armor becomes more and more minimal until he wears regular human clothes in the finale. It may or may not have been intentional by Toriyama but the symbolism of his humanization is clearly evident.

If it wasn't intentional then that means you and the other guy on twitter are clearly projecting meaning that isn't there.

Not all symbolism is intentional. Dragonball is written for kids and Toriyama's a gag writer. This isn't Shakespearean level writing. It shouldn't be that hard to deduct even if it's never been explicitly said. Vegeta was uncomfortable wearing human/earth clothing at first. By the end of DBZ and into GT, he's comfortable with it and prefers it. If that doesn't symbolize his changing values then I don't know what does. That, and that long-winded monologue where he flat out says it.

[ricky84]

Nah, there's no contradiction. Vegeta's in-universe reason for not wearing armor in the buu saga doesn't change the fact that his saiyan armor becomes more and more minimal until he wears regular human clothes in the finale. It may or may not have been intentional by Toriyama but the symbolism of his humanization is clearly evident.

If it wasn't intentional then that means you and the other guy on twitter are clearly projecting meaning that isn't there.

Not all symbolism is intentional. Dragonball is written for kids and Toriyama's a gag writer. This isn't Shakespearean level writing. It shouldn't be that hard to deduct even if it's never been explicitly said. Vegeta was uncomfortable wearing human/earth clothing at first. By the end of DBZ and into GT, he's comfortable with it and prefers it. If that doesn't symbolize his changing values then I don't know what does. That, and that long-winded monologue where he flat out says it.

If its not intentional then its not there. Assuming its there in the first place would be psychological projection. Its no different from idoits who project Illuminati conspiracies into all media, or dumb sjws who project sexism and racism into everything.

[Timetraveller]

If it wasn't intentional then that means you and the other guy on twitter are clearly projecting meaning that isn't there.

Not all symbolism is intentional. Dragonball is written for kids and Toriyama's a gag writer. This isn't Shakespearean level writing. It shouldn't be that hard to deduct even if it's never been explicitly said. Vegeta was uncomfortable wearing human/earth clothing at first. By the end of DBZ and into GT, he's comfortable with it and prefers it. If that doesn't symbolize his changing values then I don't know what does. That, and that long-winded monologue where he flat out says it.

If its not intentional then its not there. Assuming its there in the first place would be psychological projection. Its no different from idoits who project Illuminati conspiracies into all media, or dumb sjws who project sexism and racism into everything.

Don't think we can compare simple, straightforward concepts from a children's cartoon to 'illuminati conspiracies' and 'sjws who project sexism and racism into everything', man. We don't know if it was unintentional (I'd bet that it was) but the fact is Vegeta's character changes over the course of the series. It's called character development. Clever symbolism isn't going to be publicly announced by the writer/s and if it's clearly stated in-universe then it's not symbolism. I'll leave it at that.