Do you still enjoy non-canon Dragon Ball content?

[Peach]

I noticed people in the fandom throw the word "canon" around like nothing that isn't canon matters anymore.

I enjoyed Dragon Ball GT a hell of a lot more than Dragon Ball Super. Same goes for a lot of the movies like Dead Zone, Cooler, Bojack Unbound, and Path to Power. Just recently i went back and rewatched the Garlic Jr and Other World Tournament sagas and they still hold up.

It makes me sad that the fandom has shifted into either ignoring or having contempt for non-canon stories. When I was younger, I was happy just to have more stories at all.

[Melee_Sovereign]

Depends what it is. I don't really like GT. Some of the movies are good, while others aren't. DBFighterZ has a good non-canon story mode.

[ABED]

I feel the same way. It's the same way I think "stand alones" are practically a dirty word. If it's not progressing the season long plot it's apparently bad.

Some great stuff is non-canon, and some of the best episode of TV are stand alones.

[WittyUsername]

The Bardock special is non-canon, but it’s infinitely better than Minus.

[Matches Malone]

Even before BOG and Super, I didn't particularly care for most of the non-manga material, with the exception of Z's TV specials and movies 5,8,&13.

[Locust]

If it's entertaining, it's entertaining, and I'll enjoy it
I don't concern myself too much with canon
Just give me a good story and I'm happy

I feel like I'd be a bit of a hypocrite to enjoy doujinshi so much and then go on to dislike non-canon stuff?

[Polyphase Avatron]

Yeah sure, even fanfics.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

Is it entertaining, compelling in any kind of way? If yes, then canocity does not matter at all.

[WittyUsername]

I also forgot to mention that as far as canon vs. non-canon goes, I actually kind of prefer the old Broly’s backstory over the canon one’s, although I am inclined to say that the new movie is a bit better overall.

[LoganForkHands73]

The only reason I put any stock into "canon" is because whatever is currently canon is usually what's talked about. Otherwise, I couldn't and wouldn't care less, but it's just the way things go. I prefer to just view things on their own merits.

In recent times, "canon" has been appropriated by the writers and corporations who try to present these concrete lists of "acceptable" work that should be used as an absolute basis for all future media. However, this usually only ends up proving how fluid and inconsistent canon really is. So many film franchises have tried this "ignore x number of poorly-regarded sequels and just follow on from the original film" re-quel formula as I call it, where they desperately try to form a blank slate while still keeping a rudimentary continuity with the most popular, nostalgic movies. Halloween has done it a bunch of times. Season of the Witch was an anthology film that had nothing to do with the first two Michael Myers movies. The H20 trilogy ignored the post-Carpenter trilogy. Then the 2018 reboot came along and ignored all of the other sequels, including the original Halloween II by John Carpenter, completely bringing things back to square one (including retconning Michael's relationship to Laurie Strode, arguably a good thing imo). But then... are all of the other sequels, including the well-regarded ones, now just completely irrelevant? I liked the 2018 one, but fuck that noise.

In short, keeping up with "official" canon is pretty futile in my view. It should really be something that individual fans decide, not the creators. That's how it began with Sherlock Holmes readers trying to keep track of the stories Arthur Conan Doyle actually wrote. Hell, that's what those funny Bible blokes have been doing for millennia.

[ABED]

The only reason I put any stock into "canon" is because whatever is currently canon is usually what's talked about. Otherwise, I couldn't and wouldn't care less, but it's just the way things go. I prefer to just view things on their own merits.

In recent times, "canon" has been appropriated by the writers and corporations who try to present these concrete lists of "acceptable" work that should be used as an absolute basis for all future media. However, this usually only ends up proving how fluid and inconsistent canon really is. So many film franchises have tried this "ignore x number of poorly-regarded sequels and just follow on from the original film" re-quel formula as I call it, where they desperately try to form a blank slate while still keeping a rudimentary continuity with the most popular, nostalgic movies. Halloween has done it a bunch of times. Season of the Witch was an anthology film that had nothing to do with the first two Michael Myers movies. The H20 trilogy ignored the post-Carpenter trilogy. Then the 2018 reboot came along and ignored all of the other sequels, including the original Halloween II by John Carpenter, completely bringing things back to square one (including retconning Michael's relationship to Laurie Strode, arguably a good thing imo). But then... are all of the other sequels, including the well-regarded ones, now just completely irrelevant? I liked the 2018 one, but fuck that noise.

In short, keeping up with "official" canon is pretty futile in my view. It should really be something that individual fans decide, not the creators. That's how it began with Sherlock Holmes readers trying to keep track of the stories Arthur Conan Doyle actually wrote. Hell, that's what those funny Bible blokes have been doing for millennia.

Companies and writers didn't appropriate canon, they are the ones that ultimately determine what is an what isn't canon as their works are the basis of what constitutes what's in continuity. I don't know why anyone cares about it beyond the trivia aspect. Canon doesn't really matter. Canon by its nature is official. Official canon is redundant.

[Matches Malone]

I also forgot to mention that as far as canon vs. non-canon goes, I actually kind of prefer the old Broly’s backstory over the canon one’s, although I am inclined to say that the new movie is a bit better overall.

I agree with this, but did the original Broly need a remake ? Despite the new one being overall better, I don't think there was anything so wrong with the old one that required it being remade.

[Mad Swami]

I also forgot to mention that as far as canon vs. non-canon goes, I actually kind of prefer the old Broly’s backstory over the canon one’s, although I am inclined to say that the new movie is a bit better overall.

I agree with this, but did the original Broly need a remake ? Despite the new one being overall better, I don't think there was anything so wrong with the old one that required it being remade.

What aspect of the original Broly's backstory did you guys prefer? Just curious.

[ABED]

It didn't try to be emotionally manipulative and give us the cliched bad childhood so we should feel sorry for Broly. In the original he was just a psychopath. He wasn't made one.

[Matches Malone]

What aspect of the original Broly's backstory did you guys prefer? Just curious.

I liked that it was more violent, as it showed just how brutal the Saiyans were. To add to what ABED said, I think having Broly just be a psychopath the whole time instead of going back and forth was the better option. I'm also not a fan of how Freeza was portrayed, as he was just there for comedic purposes, which is the last thing you should do with someone like him. On the plus side of things, Vegeta wasn't a chicken who was waiting to die, as in Super he gave it his all each time Broly powered up. Production wise, Super Broly leaves everything before it, be it episodes or movies in the dust.

[WittyUsername]

I also forgot to mention that as far as canon vs. non-canon goes, I actually kind of prefer the old Broly’s backstory over the canon one’s, although I am inclined to say that the new movie is a bit better overall.

I agree with this, but did the original Broly need a remake ? Despite the new one being overall better, I don't think there was anything so wrong with the old one that required it being remade.

The reason that it was remade is simple: Broly is an extremely popular character, and Toriyama was talked into incorporating him into the series proper.

What aspect of the original Broly's backstory did you guys prefer? Just curious.

I like how brutal his original backstory is. It really highlights just how barbaric Saiyans can be, and the story still manages to have an element of tragedy to it, despite that version of Broly being a far less sympathetic character than he is in the latest movie. It’s not surprising that Toriyama chose to tone down Broly’s backstory when he gave his take on the character, but it makes it stand out less.

[8000 Saiyan]

Yeah, I do. I suppose Minus is supposed to be the actual canon, or whatever, but I still prefer the Bardock special. The quality of it is far better than Minus. Give me asshole Bardock any day of the week. That's what was so good about the Bardock special, an asshole from a race of assholes that finds out that a bigger asshole is going to destroy his home planet, and at the end tries to kill him. I don't give a shit about Gine being the reason for Goku's kindness or about Bardock becoming soft because of her. Minus can go fuck itself. With the way Toriyama wrote Bardock in Minus, it makes me remember how Funimation bastardized the Bardock special. We all remember how they had Sonny Strait say lines like "I thought you were special" and "I wish I could have held you in my arms", when Bardock despised Goku for being weak and only wanted him to avenge his death and nothing more.

The pre-BOG movies, despite varying in quality, are also a guilty pleasure to me.

[Mad Swami]

What aspect of the original Broly's backstory did you guys prefer? Just curious.

I liked that it was more violent, as it showed just how brutal the Saiyans were. To add to what ABED said, I think having Broly just be a psychopath the whole time instead of going back and forth was the better option. I'm also not a fan of how Freeza was portrayed, as he was just there for comedic purposes, which is the last thing you should do with someone like him. On the plus side of things, Vegeta wasn't a chicken who was waiting to die, as in Super he gave it his all each time Broly powered up. Production wise, Super Broly leaves everything before it, be it episodes or movies in the dust.

I agree with the more violent aspect of being nice. I don't like new Bardock as it feels to Supermanish which is unnecessary seeing as we already have Kami. Bardock in Father of Goku was more Saiyan which I liked. As for the Broly aspects. I think having him be full psycho just removes the option to have him be sympathetic and or redeemable which is what they wanted. It's easy to care for new Broly and put him in the roster of heroes. However Broly as a baby saving Paragus in the og I am not a fan of

[pepd]

When I was a kid and found out about Toriyama's canon it explained why sometimes characters or the story felt off, but I still enjoyed them the same (usually less than the canon).
Now I usually try to enjoy it and then forget it. I'm still open to it, but usually don't end up enjoying them much.

[Koitsukai]

Yeah, and not just the good non-canon stuff like DBZA, even though I bash them every once in a while I still enjoy stuff like SDBH or DB Multiverse. They are far from perfect, but they have surprised me more than once and they harm no one. They have interesting match-ups and scenarios.

I'll go even further, I enjoy very much the hypothetycal fight videos from Youtube like Hit vs Golden Freeza or Beerus vs Gogeta. The SSGSS Perfect Cell vs Golden Janemba not so much, but the not so-over-the-top I do like.