Broli and Coola are really canon?

Discussion, generally of an in-universe nature, regarding any aspect of the franchise (including movies, spin-offs, etc.) such as: techniques, character relationships, internal back-history, its universe, and more.

Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help

User avatar
Rayodball
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:29 am
Location: México

Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Rayodball » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:20 pm

In all internet it is spoken of the canon and not canon, but always it is said that the characters that appear in the films are not canon since they did not them Akira Toriyama.
However, I started reading the page of Kanzenshuu, the section of Bardack, and I find out about this ...

Villains such as Coola and Broli were actually originally designed by Akira Toriyama, despite only appearing in the theatrical features.
http://www.kanzenshuu.com/tidbits/the-h ... f-bardock/

Is this really true?
Are there any books where they can assure this comment?

Thanks & Regards

User avatar
B
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5561
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:15 am
Contact:

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by B » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:24 pm

Toriyama came up with the character designs, but did not create the characters themselves. Of course, Coola is Freeza and Broly says one word; when the outline is that simple, who wants credit for "creating" it?
Keen Observation of Dragon Ball Z Movie 4's Climax wrote:Slug shits to see the genki

User avatar
TheMikado
I Live Here
Posts: 4870
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 1:28 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by TheMikado » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:26 pm

Rayodball wrote:In all internet it is spoken of the canon and not canon, but always it is said that the characters that appear in the films are not canon since they did not them Akira Toriyama.
However, I started reading the page of Kanzenshuu, the section of Bardack, and I find out about this ...

Villains such as Coola and Broli were actually originally designed by Akira Toriyama, despite only appearing in the theatrical features.
http://www.kanzenshuu.com/tidbits/the-h ... f-bardock/

Is this really true?
Are there any books where they can assure this comment?

Thanks & Regards
Original character designs by Toriyama
Image
Image

User avatar
Rayodball
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:29 am
Location: México

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Rayodball » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:45 pm

So ... is it confirmed that Broli and Coola are canon?
This changes everything in what is said on the internet

User avatar
Kaboom
Moderator
Posts: 14147
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:07 pm
Location: Funky Town
Contact:

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Kaboom » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:52 pm

There is no official definition for Dragon Ball canon, and even trying to define it unofficially as "anything with direct contribution from Toriyama" doesn't work either. Toriyama has personally designed, outlined, or signed off on a LOT of stuff, and very little of it can inherently work together as a shared continuity.
deviantART
FanFic: DragonBall GT Revised
[thread]
Powar Levuls: Main Series | Movies and Specials | GT
Nintendo/PSN/Steam: KaboomKrusader

We Gotta Power >>>>> Cha-La Head Cha-La. Fight me.
If Super wanted to be "canon," then it should have been good.
A handy video guide to Kanzenshuu-level grammar quality!

precita
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5470
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:10 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by precita » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:57 pm

Goku and Vegeta made no mention of Broly when they saw Kale transform in Super, so the movies are still technically non-canon.

User avatar
Bullza
Banned
Posts: 8621
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:48 am
Location: UK

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Bullza » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:15 pm

Toriyama did the designs for several different movie characters. Besides Cooler and Broly he also did the designs for

Dr. Wheelo, Lord Slug, Androids 13, 14 and 15, Bojack and Tapion.

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Cetra » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:16 pm

Rayodball wrote:So ... is it confirmed that Broli and Coola are canon?
This changes everything in what is said on the internet

It changes nothing because canonicity is not defined just by an author in the first place. The author normally just happens to be the one who has the rights which gives him that power. The moment there are more people who own a product and the creative power over that there is more than that. So it is not "the author says" but "the owners says".
Last edited by Cetra on Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

User avatar
BlueBasilisk
I Live Here
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by BlueBasilisk » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:18 pm

precita wrote:Goku and Vegeta made no mention of Broly when they saw Kale transform in Super, so the movies are still technically non-canon.
And there was no mention of Cooler anywhere in Resurrection F so it would seem Frieza's family in the main continuity is just Frieza and King Cold.

User avatar
dragon boss z
I'm pretty cozy, here...
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by dragon boss z » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:43 pm

Rayodball wrote:So ... is it confirmed that Broli and Coola are canon?
This changes everything in what is said on the internet
Pretty much everyone here already knew Toriyama designed them. Since when does designing a character make them canon?
"Canon" just means continuity. Broly and Cooler are canon to their movie verse, the plan to eradicate the saiyans special, and maybe GT. But he is not canon to the dragon ball manga or Kai/Super anime.
Toriyama has said in an interview he likes to think of the movies as an alternate reality or something. The recent episode of Super pretty much proved Broly isn't canon considering they didn't recognize Kale's transformation.

User avatar
dario03
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:36 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by dario03 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:52 pm

Bullza wrote:Toriyama did the designs for several different movie characters. Besides Cooler and Broly he also did the designs for

Dr. Wheelo, Lord Slug, Androids 13, 14 and 15, Bojack and Tapion.
Didn't he do a bunch of designs for GT too? Like most of updated looks of the returning characters?

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Cetra » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:56 pm

dario03 wrote:
Bullza wrote:Toriyama did the designs for several different movie characters. Besides Cooler and Broly he also did the designs for

Dr. Wheelo, Lord Slug, Androids 13, 14 and 15, Bojack and Tapion.
Didn't he do a bunch of designs for GT too? Like most of updated looks of the returning characters?
Indeed. He designed the entire hero cast including 80's Vegeta and Bra.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

superfan2024
Regular
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by superfan2024 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:12 pm

No, they are not canon at all as of now, why can't some of you understand this? Just cause Toriyama designed the characters doesn't mean that they are apart of the story. Toriyama also designed characters and planets for GT and we all know GT isn't canon.

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Cetra » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:22 pm

superfan2024 wrote:No, they are not canon at all as of now, why can't some of you understand this?

If anyone does not understand the concept of canonicity it is you.
superfan2024 wrote:Toriyama also designed characters and planets for GT and we all know GT isn't canon.
We don't know a thing. That is nothing but a claim. Dragon Ball is owned by multiple parties who have the power to do with it what they want. And for them to actually define canonicity would be a troublesome thing to do because they risk losing money if they do it wrong. Canonicity has nothing to do with:

- Made soley by the author
- Does not contain inconsistencies
- Does not suck in the eyes of the fans

It has nothing to do with it.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

User avatar
dragon boss z
I'm pretty cozy, here...
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:19 am

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by dragon boss z » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:37 pm

Cetra wrote:
superfan2024 wrote:No, they are not canon at all as of now, why can't some of you understand this?

If anyone does not understand the concept of canonicity it is you.
superfan2024 wrote:Toriyama also designed characters and planets for GT and we all know GT isn't canon.
We don't know a thing. That is nothing but a claim. Dragon Ball is owned by multiple parties who have the power to do with it what they want. And for them to actually define canonicity would be a troublesome thing to do because they risk losing money if they do it wrong. Canonicity has nothing to do with:

- Made soley by the author
- Does not contain inconsistencies
- Does not suck in the eyes of the fans

It has nothing to do with it.
Canon is short for continuity.

Movie characters aren't canon to the original manga, but they are canon to their own movies. However when most people say canon in dragon ball they are usually talking about the main timeline.

User avatar
Lord Frieza
I Live Here
Posts: 3703
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:36 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Lord Frieza » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:39 pm

Well that depends on which cannon you refer to.

They are not cannon to the manga as there is zero mention of them, this also applies to the anime. Even if you could squeeze in their first moves, as I've said their is no mention of them and there are inconsistencies. However there is literally no room for the second Cooler movie and the two follow up Broly movies to take place.

Cooler may be cannon to GT since he was seen in one shot, by extension that might make Broly cannon in GT to.

They are certainly not cannon to Super since Frieza and his men make no mention of a 3rd family member and the heroes have never seen a hulking, green haired saiyan before.

They are cannon in what ever warped cannon movies and video games exist in.
Last edited by Lord Frieza on Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Lord Quitela - The God of Destruction of Universe 4

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Cetra » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:42 pm

dragon boss z wrote:
Cetra wrote:
superfan2024 wrote:No, they are not canon at all as of now, why can't some of you understand this?

If anyone does not understand the concept of canonicity it is you.
superfan2024 wrote:Toriyama also designed characters and planets for GT and we all know GT isn't canon.
We don't know a thing. That is nothing but a claim. Dragon Ball is owned by multiple parties who have the power to do with it what they want. And for them to actually define canonicity would be a troublesome thing to do because they risk losing money if they do it wrong. Canonicity has nothing to do with:

- Made soley by the author
- Does not contain inconsistencies
- Does not suck in the eyes of the fans

It has nothing to do with it.
Canon is short for continuity.

Movie characters aren't canon to the original manga, but they are canon to their own movies. However when most people say canon in dragon ball they are usually talking about the main timeline.
Canon is not short for continuity. Canon is short for Canonicity. Also there is no phrasing of "it is not canon" because "canon" is not an adjective. The adjective is "canonical". In fiction it is just synonymously used for "in-continuity" questions very often. I don't know why you feel the need to tell me anything. And no, there is nothing canonical and non-canonical to anything because Dragon Ball is in a state of absolute lose and undefined canonicity with sloppy rules where we have "somewhat" of a sight of the things and yet they still do not know it because it is undefined. And the terms "different dimension" or "side-story" or anything like that have nothing to do with canonicity before that comes in your next post. This is not my first talk about canonicity in fiction. Own the brand, own the rights. The owners do not want a clearly defined canonicity. Things are foggy as of now. I am a fan of lots of fictional pieces with actual canonicity where fans still argue about it as if they could decide anything.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

superfan2024
Regular
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by superfan2024 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:55 pm

Cetra wrote:
superfan2024 wrote:No, they are not canon at all as of now, why can't some of you understand this?

If anyone does not understand the concept of canonicity it is you.
superfan2024 wrote:Toriyama also designed characters and planets for GT and we all know GT isn't canon.
We don't know a thing. That is nothing but a claim. Dragon Ball is owned by multiple parties who have the power to do with it what they want. And for them to actually define canonicity would be a troublesome thing to do because they risk losing money if they do it wrong. Canonicity has nothing to do with:

- Made soley by the author
- Does not contain inconsistencies
- Does not suck in the eyes of the fans

It has nothing to do with it.
What? What are you talking about? If these characters are not in Toriyama's main stories in his manga or outline, then they are not canon. Simple as that. Broly, Cooler, and all of GT occur in their own story, spinoff, or universe (whatever you wanna decide) which are all separate of Toriyama's main story of DB, DBZ, and DBS.

So to answer the question, no, Broly and Cooler are not canon.

User avatar
Hellspawn28
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 14019
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:50 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Hellspawn28 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:58 pm

They didn't mention Broli in Super and Goku didn't get any type of flash back or mention of DBZ Movie 8. I think it is safe to say that DBZ Movies 1-13 are their own thing and not apart of the main story.
PS4 username: Guyver_Spawn_27
MAL Profile: http://myanimelist.net/profile/Hellspawn28
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/GS27/

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Broli and Coola are really canon?

Post by Cetra » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:03 pm

superfan2024 wrote: What? What are you talking about? If these characters are not in Toriyama's main stories in his manga or outline, then they are not canon. Simple as that. Broly, Cooler, and all of GT occur in their own story, spinoff, or universe (whatever you wanna decide) which are all separate of Toriyama's main story of DB, DBZ, and DBS.

So to answer the question, no, Broly and Cooler are not canon.
There is no "simple as that". You made up your own set of rules of how to define canonicity. That is not how these things function. Dragon Ball is undefined. Shueisha for example would have the power to any day canonize whatever they want for the very fact they own the brand. Own the brand, own the rights. Intellectual and legal property. Money and power. Akira Toriyama is not the sole owner of Dragon Ball and he in multiple occasions, it being for a magazine or other stuff already showed his respect for the work of others on Dragon Ball by even saying stuff like "these guys know more about it than me". Toriyama-san has no problem with Dragon Ball being originally invented by him but now, 30 years old as it is, not just being his own product but that of many and also when it comes to the highest decisive powers. Yes, he created it back in 1984. And he still works on it. But he is not the only owner and not the only one who decides.

You for example just used the word "spinoff" synonymously to "non-canonical". That is not what "spin-off" means. Tons of stories have spin-offs and side stories that are canonical to what they are based off.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

Post Reply