"Dragon Ball Super (Manga)" Official Discussion Thread

[emperior]

Wasn't it said Trunks was going to be wearing Future Gohan's robes in the manga? That just confirms what I already thought, Trunks won't die in the manga.
Also we still have to see that "Trunks' tutor part"

[Basako]

Reading the translation, especially in script form, finally made me pinpoint what never sat well with me, outside of the boring paneling and story choices I don't find done as well as the anime. There is no character present in the manga. Everything is an exposition dump! Characters are fighting? Make sure you explain every single thing they are doing. Characters are standing around? Make sure to have them talk about something the audience doesn't know. Cut out to something else? Someone is explaining something to someone else. No one has enough room to talk about how they feel, what they think about the events that are happening. This got especially blatant in this arc, with Zamasu/Black. In the anime you have most of everything that the manga is doing with them, but Black/Zamasu still can go on a rant about what he thinks about mortals, Trunks' sins, Goku and Vegeta standing against them etc. In the manga, I can't think of a single time their dialogue has not been either exposition or just stating the obvious.

The only exceptions I can think of is stuff that's coming from Toriyama, as it's both in the manga and anime: Piccolo asking Frost not to use his final form against him, Vegeta's Saiyan cells rant, Zuno being an asshole and counting all the stupid questions Bulma asks, Vegeta swearing Magetta, Vegeta fake-threatning Planet Sadal to motivate Cabba, Goku giving up against Hit.

It seems to be the exact reverse of the anime. While the anime barely explains anything for the sake of cool character moments, the manga explains way to fucking much, turning every character into a boring words machine.

Just a few things.

Explanations have to be made one way or another, I thank the manga for bringing them, otherwise we would have to be guessing and theorizing.

About expressing emotions, when you have images, you don't really need to express every emotion with lines and I think Toyotaro is pretty good with the facial expression of the characters.

The action and fights are pretty good, there is so much movement and without losing the continuity, this chapter has been specially good on it.

[Doctor.]

That is assuming that the changes were big enough to warrant a split in the timeline. Not every small change causes a tornado.

But this makes no sense. Every small change has to split the timeline or else you're left with a temporal impossibility.

Say that Trunks travels back to the past and Goku doesn't eat a steak for dinner, changes nothing else, and leaves. Destiny was that he would eat that steak, which means that, since the timeline never split, Goku did, in fact, eat the steak. But that's not true because we know that Goku didn't eat the steak. So, if you ask Goku if he ate the steak or not, what will he reply with? You're left with one timeline with a universe-breaking contradiction.

That's what's happening here. This method of time travel literally cannot work. Every small change has to split the timeline.

Beerus destroying Zamasu being the act that splits the timeline makes no sense. Because that still means that everything that happened prior to Zamasu's death (Trunks coming back, Beerus going to Zamasu's realm) still happened in both timelines because the timeline didn't split before that point. Which means everything was already predetermined to happen.

You can't have two different things happening and still call it the SAME timeline, this is not how time travel works!

[HeroR]

That is assuming that the changes were big enough to warrant a split in the timeline. Not every small change causes a tornado.

But this makes no sense. Every small change has to split the timeline or else you're left with a temporal impossibility.

Say that Trunks travels back to the past and Goku doesn't eat a steak for dinner, changes nothing else, and leaves. Destiny was that he would eat that steak, which means that, since the timeline never split, Goku did, in fact, eat the steak. But that's not true because we know that Goku didn't eat the steak. So, if you ask Goku if he ate the steak or not, what will he reply with? You're left with one timeline with a universe-breaking contradiction.

That's what's happening here. This method of time travel literally cannot work. Every small change has to split the timeline.

Again, this is an assumption that any small changed has big effect. However, not all changing like picking a flower in a field equals to a civilization being destroyed one-thousand years later.

Destiny isn't depicted as what you have for dinner. Destiny is changing when someone dies, especially in Goku's case since he died of a natural illness. He wasn't killed, it was simply his time to die and Trunks changed it. Or if Trunks kept Goku from meeting Chi-Chi, which would have prevented Gohan from being born. If Goku was destined to eat steak dinner, chokes on the food, and dies, then that is a big change. In Dragon Ball, timelines don't split because you changed what you have dinner.

You're mixing other time traveling stories with Dragon Ball.

[TheMikado]

That is assuming that the changes were big enough to warrant a split in the timeline. Not every small change causes a tornado.

But this makes no sense. Every small change has to split the timeline or else you're left with a temporal impossibility.

Say that Trunks travels back to the past and Goku doesn't eat a steak for dinner, changes nothing else, and leaves. Destiny was that he would eat that steak, which means that, since the timeline never split, Goku did, in fact, eat the steak. But that's not true because we know that Goku didn't eat the steak. So, if you ask Goku if he ate the steak or not, what will he reply with? You're left with one timeline with a universe-breaking contradiction.

That's what's happening here. This method of time travel literally cannot work. Every small change has to split the timeline.

Beerus destroying Zamasu being the act that splits the timeline makes no sense. Because that still means that everything that happened prior to Zamasu's death (Trunks coming back, Beerus going to Zamasu's realm) still happened in both timelines because the timeline didn't split before that point. Which means everything was already predetermined to happen.

You can't have two different things happening and still call it the SAME timeline, this is not how time travel works!

Except, at least in the Dragonball world, time seems to be auto correcting and can compensate for small changes. Your steak analogy is perfect. You assume the question would even be asked or that it would present a larger seri s of events and split. It doesn't, otherwise every trip back and forth would have created a seperate timeline.

In your example, Goku doesn't have steak, he has ham. Everything else in the timelines transpires exactly the same both prior to and after the change. Therefor no need for a seperate timeline. You're talking about the butterfly effect theory and applying it to fictional a understanding of fictional tine travel rules and mechanics.
In the Dragonball universe time travel only works the way the author tells us it work.

[Doctor.]

Again, this is an assumption that any small changed has big effect. However, not all changing like picking a flower in a field equals to a civilization being destroyed one-thousand years later.

It doesn't matter, because it's still a change. You can't have two different things happening in the same timeline, that's a temporal contradiction. That change will still affect someone, something. Going back in time and picking a flower in a field will mean that whenever some person comes across that field, they'll notice that there's no flower. So you're left with the same person in the same timeline having two different experiences. Every small change counts.

Again, with the Beerus example:

Beerus destroying Zamasu being the act that splits the timeline makes no sense. Because that still means that everything that happened prior to Zamasu's death (Trunks coming back, Beerus going to Zamasu's realm) still happened in both timelines because the timeline didn't split before that point. Which means everything was already predetermined to happen.

Destiny isn't depicted as what you have for dinner. Destiny is changing when someone dies, especially in Goku's case since he died of a natural illness. He wasn't killed, it was simply his time to die and Trunks changed it. Or if Trunks kept Goku from meeting Chi-Chi, which would have prevented Gohan from being born. If Goku was destined to eat steak dinner, chokes on the food, and dies, then that is a big change. In Dragon Ball, timelines don't split because you changed what you have dinner.

No, actually, destiny is as small as that. The Oracle Fish in Super predicted that Beerus would fire off a ki blast in his sleep.

You're mixing other time traveling stories with Dragon Ball.

No, I'm taking the concept of time travel as a whole and explaining to you how this version of time travel doesn't work.

[TheMikado]

Ssj2 Trunks landed more hits on SsjR Black than SsjB Vegeta did.
This was worse than the anime, where at least Trunks only fought Zamasu.

Except that's not true...

It's true indeed.

Your statement that Trunks only fought Zamasu in the anime is a LIE.
Period.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qDigYxVX0

[Draconic]

Reading the translation, especially in script form, finally made me pinpoint what never sat well with me, outside of the boring paneling and story choices I don't find done as well as the anime. There is no character present in the manga. Everything is an exposition dump! Characters are fighting? Make sure you explain every single thing they are doing. Characters are standing around? Make sure to have them talk about something the audience doesn't know. Cut out to something else? Someone is explaining something to someone else. No one has enough room to talk about how they feel, what they think about the events that are happening. This got especially blatant in this arc, with Zamasu/Black. In the anime you have most of everything that the manga is doing with them, but Black/Zamasu still can go on a rant about what he thinks about mortals, Trunks' sins, Goku and Vegeta standing against them etc. In the manga, I can't think of a single time their dialogue has not been either exposition or just stating the obvious.

The only exceptions I can think of is stuff that's coming from Toriyama, as it's both in the manga and anime: Piccolo asking Frost not to use his final form against him, Vegeta's Saiyan cells rant, Zuno being an asshole and counting all the stupid questions Bulma asks, Vegeta swearing Magetta, Vegeta fake-threatning Planet Sadal to motivate Cabba, Goku giving up against Hit.

It seems to be the exact reverse of the anime. While the anime barely explains anything for the sake of cool character moments, the manga explains way to fucking much, turning every character into a boring words machine.



Also, on an unrelated note, complaining about Trunks' Taiyoken is the very definition of nitpicking.

Just a few things.

Explanations have to be made one way or another, I thank the manga for bringing them, otherwise we would have to be guessing and theorizing.

About expressing emotions, when you have images, you don't really need to express every emotion with lines and I think Toyotaro is pretty good with the facial expression of the characters.

The action and fights are pretty good, there is so much movement and without losing the continuity, this chapter has been specially good on it.

It's not that explanations shouldn't be there, it's that they are almost the only thing that is there. You can't just do a story by explaining every single thing happening, you need the characters to also go trough and respond to the things being explained. Otherwise, you can just attach some pretty pictures to a guidebook and call it a day.

Facial expressions are not everything that makes a character. Emotions are more complex than some funny faces. Two characters can have the same expression of anger, but respond to it in a different way. Comics/manga are not a great medium because they have pictures, but because they blend writing with said pictures. There is a balance to be struck and this arc Toyotaro hasn't really been on point for now.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but while I had high hopes when I saw the first leaked pages, after actually seeing the whole chapter, while those pages were great on their own, in context the chapter falls a little flat.

Yeah what an amazing writing is showing stuff without explaining things is just cool so I like it the through it make no fucking sense DBS fandom in a nutshell and not everything is exposition in the manga I don't remember chapter 9 to 12 having that much exposition

Well, chapter 9's first couple of pages is nothing but explaining Botamo's advantage over Goku, but yeah, there's not that much exposition in them, outside of the good amount by some spectators. However, those chapters are mostly fighting anyway. The only dialogue heavy one is the Vegeta vs Cabba one, which has specifications in the outline of how to get written and I already excluded it.

[HeroR]

Again, this is an assumption that any small changed has big effect. However, not all changing like picking a flower in a field equals to a civilization being destroyed one-thousand years later.

It doesn't matter, because it's still a change. You can't have two different things happening in the same timeline, that's a temporal contradiction. That change will still affect someone, something. Going back in time and picking a flower in a field will mean that whenever some person comes across that field, they'll notice that there's no flower. So you're left with the same person in the same timeline having two different experiences. Every small change counts.

Again, with the Beerus example:

Beerus destroying Zamasu being the act that splits the timeline makes no sense. Because that still means that everything that happened prior to Zamasu's death (Trunks coming back, Beerus going to Zamasu's realm) still happened in both timelines because the timeline didn't split before that point. Which means everything was already predetermined to happen.

Destiny isn't depicted as what you have for dinner. Destiny is changing when someone dies, especially in Goku's case since he died of a natural illness. He wasn't killed, it was simply his time to die and Trunks changed it. Or if Trunks kept Goku from meeting Chi-Chi, which would have prevented Gohan from being born. If Goku was destined to eat steak dinner, chokes on the food, and dies, then that is a big change. In Dragon Ball, timelines don't split because you changed what you have dinner.

No, actually, destiny is as small as that. The Oracle Fish in Super predicted that Beerus would fire off a ki blast in his sleep.

You're mixing other time traveling stories with Dragon Ball.

No, I'm taking the concept of time travel as a whole and explaining to you how this version of time travel doesn't work.

The concept of time travel is different in every story. What is true in one story isn't true in another. Dragon Ball doesn't follow the butterfly effect completely in that every change equals a big change. Only a little change could become a big change.

[Doctor.]

The concept of time travel is different in every story. What is true in one story isn't true in another. Dragon Ball doesn't follow the butterfly effect completely in that every change equals a big change. Only a little change could become a big change.

Dragon Ball Super follows that logic, Dragon Ball doesn't.

And I understand that, I'm saying it's nonsensical. I'm not arguing against the fact that Super's time travel works like this. I'm arguing against the notion that it makes sense.

[TheMikado]

Again, this is an assumption that any small changed has big effect. However, not all changing like picking a flower in a field equals to a civilization being destroyed one-thousand years later.

It doesn't matter, because it's still a change. You can't have two different things happening in the same timeline, that's a temporal contradiction. That change will still affect someone, something. Going back in time and picking a flower in a field will mean that whenever some person comes across that field, they'll notice that there's no flower. So you're left with the same person in the same timeline having two different experiences. Every small change counts.

Again, with the Beerus example:

Beerus destroying Zamasu being the act that splits the timeline makes no sense. Because that still means that everything that happened prior to Zamasu's death (Trunks coming back, Beerus going to Zamasu's realm) still happened in both timelines because the timeline didn't split before that point. Which means everything was already predetermined to happen.

Destiny isn't depicted as what you have for dinner. Destiny is changing when someone dies, especially in Goku's case since he died of a natural illness. He wasn't killed, it was simply his time to die and Trunks changed it. Or if Trunks kept Goku from meeting Chi-Chi, which would have prevented Gohan from being born. If Goku was destined to eat steak dinner, chokes on the food, and dies, then that is a big change. In Dragon Ball, timelines don't split because you changed what you have dinner.

No, actually, destiny is as small as that. The Oracle Fish in Super predicted that Beerus would fire off a ki blast in his sleep.

You're mixing other time traveling stories with Dragon Ball.

No, I'm taking the concept of time travel as a whole and explaining to you how this version of time travel doesn't work.

Unfortunately at this point time travel as we are seeing it depicted here is science fiction. We are discussing fictional science and basing it on the idea that timelines are not overwritten which could be completely false tonbegin with we have no idea and you can't take concepts from other unproven theories to disprove another theory. NO ONE KNOWS HOW TIME TRAVEL WOULD ACTUALLY WORK. This is just how the one in the DB universe is presented and basically as good as any other theory without hard evidence. This version works in this fictional universe because we have no idea how it actually works in the real universe. The important thing is that the concept and theory is consistent within its own universe.

[The gr]

Reading the translation, especially in script form, finally made me pinpoint what never sat well with me, outside of the boring paneling and story choices I don't find done as well as the anime. There is no character present in the manga. Everything is an exposition dump! Characters are fighting? Make sure you explain every single thing they are doing. Characters are standing around? Make sure to have them talk about something the audience doesn't know. Cut out to something else? Someone is explaining something to someone else. No one has enough room to talk about how they feel, what they think about the events that are happening. This got especially blatant in this arc, with Zamasu/Black. In the anime you have most of everything that the manga is doing with them, but Black/Zamasu still can go on a rant about what he thinks about mortals, Trunks' sins, Goku and Vegeta standing against them etc. In the manga, I can't think of a single time their dialogue has not been either exposition or just stating the obvious.

The only exceptions I can think of is stuff that's coming from Toriyama, as it's both in the manga and anime: Piccolo asking Frost not to use his final form against him, Vegeta's Saiyan cells rant, Zuno being an asshole and counting all the stupid questions Bulma asks, Vegeta swearing Magetta, Vegeta fake-threatning Planet Sadal to motivate Cabba, Goku giving up against Hit.

It seems to be the exact reverse of the anime. While the anime barely explains anything for the sake of cool character moments, the manga explains way to fucking much, turning every character into a boring words machine.



Also, on an unrelated note, complaining about Trunks' Taiyoken is the very definition of nitpicking.

Just a few things.

Explanations have to be made one way or another, I thank the manga for bringing them, otherwise we would have to be guessing and theorizing.

About expressing emotions, when you have images, you don't really need to express every emotion with lines and I think Toyotaro is pretty good with the facial expression of the characters.

The action and fights are pretty good, there is so much movement and without losing the continuity, this chapter has been specially good on it.

It's not that explanations shouldn't be there, it's that they are almost the only thing that is there. You can't just do a story by explaining every single thing happening, you need the characters to also go trough and respond to the things being explained. Otherwise, you can just attach some pretty pictures to a guidebook and call it a day.

Facial expressions are not everything that makes a character. Emotions are more complex than some funny faces. Two characters can have the same expression of anger, but respond to it in a different way. Comics/manga are not a great medium because they have pictures, but because they blend writing with said pictures. There is a balance to be struck and this arc Toyotaro hasn't really been on point for now.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but while I had high hopes when I saw the first leaked pages, after actually seeing the whole chapter, while those pages were great on their own, in context the chapter falls a little flat.

Yeah what an amazing writing is showing stuff without explaining things is just cool so I like it the through it make no fucking sense DBS fandom in a nutshell and not everything is exposition in the manga I don't remember chapter 9 to 12 having that much exposition

Well, chapter 9's first couple of pages is nothing but explaining Botamo's advantage over Goku, but yeah, there's not that much exposition in them, outside of the good amount by some spectators. However, those chapters are mostly fighting anyway. The only dialogue heavy one is the Vegeta vs Cabba one, which has specifications in the outline of how to get written and I already excluded it.

Yeah I forgot chapter 9 did have some explanation kinda like the anime through the anime did a better job explaining botamo abilities but chapter 9-12 was all a action based with the exception of cabba Vs Vegeta but the exposition start in chap 13

[HeroR]

The concept of time travel is different in every story. What is true in one story isn't true in another. Dragon Ball doesn't follow the butterfly effect completely in that every change equals a big change. Only a little change could become a big change.

Dragon Ball Super follows that logic, Dragon Ball doesn't.

And I understand that, I'm saying it's nonsensical. I'm not arguing against the fact that Super's time travel works like this. I'm arguing against the notion that it makes sense.

Dragon Ball Z did follow the butterfly effect to an extent. Trunks given Goku the medicine caused Goku to get sick later and Androids 19 and 20 to show up instead of Androids 17 and 18. We then got 16 in the mixed. That also explained why Cell being one year in the past didn't cause the timeline split and allowed Trunks to enter what was an already corrupted timeline.

We're arguing about time traveling making sense. A fictional concept that has no basic in reality or fact.

[TheMikado]

The concept of time travel is different in every story. What is true in one story isn't true in another. Dragon Ball doesn't follow the butterfly effect completely in that every change equals a big change. Only a little change could become a big change.

Dragon Ball Super follows that logic, Dragon Ball doesn't.

And I understand that, I'm saying it's nonsensical. I'm not arguing against the fact that Super's time travel works like this. I'm arguing against the notion that it makes sense.

Where is it stated that the butterfly effect is how time travel works in Super to the same degree? Time travel in Supers manga works exactly like it did in Dragonball. At least nothing in this contradicts what was established in Dragonball.

[Doctor.]

Unfortunately at this point time travel as we are seeing it depicted here is science fiction. We are discussing fictional science and basing it on the idea that timelines are not overwritten which could be completely false tonbegin with we have no idea and you can't take concepts from other unproven theories to disprove another theory. NO ONE KNOWS HOW TIME TRAVEL WOULD ACTUALLY WORK. This is just how the one in the DB universe is presented and basically as good as any other theory without hard evidence. This version works in this fictional universe because we have no idea how it actually works in the real universe. The important thing is that the concept and theory is consistent within its own universe.

And that's fine. I just thought that Dragon Ball was one of the few series who always did time travel semi-decently and this change needlessly fucks everything up, to my understanding. Just because we don't have evidence of how time travel would actually work doesn't mean we can't criticize it and say it makes no sense. We also don't have any evidence of how intergalactic travel would work, but if a series comes out and says you can do it if you put a screwdriver on a potato and sing a magic chant, are we not allowed to say it makes no sense?

Dragon Ball Z did follow the butterfly effect to an extent. Trunks given Goku the medicine caused Goku to get sick later and Androids 19 and 20 to show up instead of Androids 17 and 18. We then got 16 in the mixed. That also explained why Cell being one year in the past didn't cause the timeline split and allowed Trunks to enter what was an already corrupted timeline.

Dragon Ball followed the butterfly effect but it wasn't the butterfly effect that created a new timeline. It was the opposite, the creation of a new timeline is what lead to the butterfly effect. There's a difference here. Super does the first thing, Z did the second thing.

Where is it stated that he butterfly effect is how time travel works in Super? Time travel in Supers manga works exactly like it did in Dragonball. At least nothing in this contradicts what was established in Dragonball.

The fact that it's explained how the butterfly effect works in both the Super anime and the Super manga and that Trunks coming back in time apparently doesn't change the timeline, but it's Beerus destroying Zamasu, a product of the time travel, aka the butterfly effect, that changes the timeline. That's not how time travel worked in Dragon Ball, at least not how the fans, guidebooks and videogames always interpreted it to have worked.

[TheMikado]

^ yes except they were making an assumption and it was a theory. The author never said time travel itself causes the split, we always just assumed that was the case because no one ever took casual trips into the past to not change things.

We also don't know that merely traveling back in time caused the changes. We actually don't know why there are differences in the timelines and if Trunks in action would have l ad things to play out the same regardless of whether he had traveled there. We can't assume the ship created a new timeline because I don't think that's what actually happens. Gokus timeline didn't get created until the moment Trunks interfere himself with the naturally occurring timeline, after that point everything was fair game.

[Doctor.]

^ yes except they were making an assumption and it was a theory. The author never said time travel itself causes the split, we always just assumed that was the case because no one ever took casual trips into the past to not change things.

We also don't know that merely traveling back in time caused the changes. We actually don't know why there are differences in the timelines and if Trunks in action would have l ad things to play out the same regardless of whether he had traveled there. We can't assume the ship created a new timeline because I don't think that's what actually happens. Gokus timeline didn't get created until the moment Trunks interfere himself with the naturally occurring timeline, after that point everything was fair game.

Well, actually, Trunks at the start of the arc says he'll arrive in a different world if he ever changed the coordinates of the time machine. So, that points towards being the time machine that causes the timeline split.

[HeroR]

^ yes except they were making an assumption and it was a theory. The author never said time travel itself causes the split, we always just assumed that was the case because no one ever took casual trips into the past to not change things.

We also don't know that merely traveling back in time caused the changes. We actually don't know why there are differences in the timelines and if Trunks in action would have l ad things to play out the same regardless of whether he had traveled there. We can't assume the ship created a new timeline because I don't think that's what actually happens. Gokus timeline didn't get created until the moment Trunks interfere himself with the naturally occurring timeline, after that point everything was fair game.

Well, actually, Trunks at the start of the arc says he'll arrive in a different world if he ever changed the coordinates of the time machine. So, that points towards being the time machine that causes the timeline split.

Using Trunks as a source is flawed since he originally thought changing the past would change his future, which was why he was worried about no existing if Goku told Vegeta and Bulma about him. Trunks knowledge of time travel is limited to his personal experience.

[Doctor.]

Using Trunks as a source is flawed since he originally thought changing the past would change his future, which was why he was worried about no existing if Goku told Vegeta and Bulma about him. Trunks knowledge of time travel is limited to his personal experience.

Using Trunks in this case works because the information fits with our pre-established notion of time travel and the line is clearly there for exposition purposes, to explain any unanswered questions the audience may have. Trunks now is much more experienced with time travel than he was at the start.

[HeroR]

Using Trunks as a source is flawed since he originally thought changing the past would change his future, which was why he was worried about no existing if Goku told Vegeta and Bulma about him. Trunks knowledge of time travel is limited to his personal experience.

Using Trunks in this case works because the information fits with our pre-established notion of time travel and the line is clearly there for exposition purposes, to explain any unanswered questions the audience may have. Trunks now is much more experienced with time travel than he was at the start.

It fits what fans believed, which turned out not to be true. Trunks has more experienced, but he's still playing it by ear and he already has a history of getting the rules of time travel wrong.