Official On-Going Dragon Ball Super Movie #1 Thread: "Broly"

[God Gogeta]

I like to think Freeza has toughened up enough from his time in Hell to take it. He doesn’t seem terribly injured when Gogeta shows up.

Just adds weight to Vegeta's fears that Frieza could get stronger and be a real threat again one day.

He already is a real threat at the current moment. Let's remember Golden Frieza is pretty much equal to Goku at SSB. It didn't take long for him to catch up in just 4 months and even get stronger while he was in Hell. Just imagine what he could do in say... 2 -5 more years of training. He could probably have a good shot at taking Goku down right now if he tried, but problem is he's also gotta worry about Vegeta, Beerus, Broly, Whis. They are all obstacles. So I can see why he's keeping his distance until he can tip the balance in his favour.

Frieza may even be stronger than he was in TOP. He seems pretty confident in killing Goku (while talking with Paragus) even after watching his power there. So , may be Golden Frieza is stronger than PSSB form Goku used in the movie, may at least be in durability .

[Doctor.]

Paragus makes it distinctly clear that he divorced himself from Saiyan society and only cares about revenge now. He's hardly analogous to the Saiyans at all.

The point about Broly not fighting because he wants to simply means that he was fighting against his will -- nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in the film suggests that he inherently wouldn't or couldn't enjoy fighting for the fun of it, and in fact, his friendship with Bah and his bond with Goku at the end specifically imply otherwise.

The Saiyans are sympathetic, and Broly is sympathetic for different (but certainly not contradictory) reasons. The themes there are entirely coherent.

He's analogous to the way the Saiyans have always been portrayed in this series: barbaric, self-serving and obsessed with one goal. Paragus may have exiled himself, but he's still a Saiyan at heart. To argue otherwise would mean Saiyan characterization has been changed in this movie, which just helps my point.

The Saiyans shouldn't be sympathetic when the reason Broly is sympathetic is because the movie contrasts him with the other Saiyans and makes it a point that he's pure-hearted. It is entirely incoherent.

How is it whitewashing that they are care that their planet was destroyed? They can't be warmongers if they care about their entire race being eradicated? And even so, Vegeta, and Raditz don't give a shit about their planet being destroyed. If Hitler was sad that his country he ruled had been disintegrated, does that make him a good guy/whitewashed?

If a movie showed you a different side to Hitler where he actually cared about his loved ones and tried to save them before his demise, then it'd get accused of whitewashing Hitler, which curiously enough is exactly some of the criticisms the film 'The Downfall' got.

Seems like complaining for the sake of it, again.

This means nothing. I'm starting to think you have something against me at this point. I've already said I liked the movie and it's in my top 5 Dragon Ball films. Can I not criticize what I think is a fairly lackluster script without accusations that I'm complaining for the sake of it? Must I be completely on-board with every idea that a movie I like has to present or else I'm just complaining for the sake of complaining? I honestly don't know how you can function with that sort of worldview.

[Marlowe89]

Paragus may have exiled himself, but he's still a Saiyan at heart.

Every Saiyan in the film is a Saiyan at heart. Broly is a Saiyan at heart, and the movie makes that crystal clear on at least three separate occasions.

The Saiyans shouldn't be sympathetic when the reason Broly is sympathetic is because the movie contrasts him with the other Saiyans and makes it a point that he's pure-hearted.

No, it doesn't. I explained this perfectly well in the second paragraph you quoted.

The movie does a lot of foil work, but not once does it attempt to contrast Broly with Saiyan nature. His friendship with Bah boiled down to fighting, which he enjoyed. His new friendship with Goku boils down to fighting and training, which he's thoroughly satisfied with.

I'd say your point in general is what's particularly incoherent. Broly's tragic circumstances were established through his uniquely revenge-driven upbringing, something that Saiyans aren't exposed to. This has nothing to do with their physiological tendencies at all. That's consistently kept intact for every character throughout the runtime.

[TheNingen]

Just adds weight to Vegeta's fears that Frieza could get stronger and be a real threat again one day.

He already is a real threat at the current moment. Let's remember Golden Frieza is pretty much equal to Goku at SSB. It didn't take long for him to catch up in just 4 months and even get stronger while he was in Hell. Just imagine what he could do in say... 2 -5 more years of training. He could probably have a good shot at taking Goku down right now if he tried, but problem is he's also gotta worry about Vegeta, Beerus, Broly, Whis. They are all obstacles. So I can see why he's keeping his distance until he can tip the balance in his favour.

Frieza may even be stronger than he was in TOP. He seems pretty confident in killing Goku (while talking with Paragus) even after watching his power there. So , may be Golden Frieza is stronger than PSSB form Goku used in the movie, may at least be in durability .

I think in one of the novel's it's suggested or said that Golden Freeza is stronger than SSB Goku and Vegeta

[Doctor.]

The movie does a lot of foil work, but not once does it attempt to contrast Broly with Saiyan nature. His friendship with Bah boiled down to fighting, which he enjoyed. His new friendship with Goku boils down to fighting and training, which he's thoroughly satisfied with.

Saiyan nature isn't fighting. That's Goku's nature. Saiyan nature is brutality, at least insofar as presented in the original series. Presenting Saiyan nature as fighting without the brutality attached to it is a modern DB idea, and specifically one that this movie tried to roll with.

[WeLoveBroly]

Still think that Freeza using the dragon balls to be a bit taller is completely out of character. And his justification for not wishing for immorality makes no sense either. He will die eventually so wouldn't he want to avoid going back to hell by wishing for immorality?

[Doctor.]

Still think that Freeza using the dragon balls to be a bit taller is completely out of character. And his justification for not wishing for immorality makes no sense either. He will die eventually so wouldn't he want to avoid going back to hell by wishing for immorality?

It's disappointing and still out-of-character, but I've more-or-less accepted the gag when you consider that 1. it was juxtaposed with Bulma's, and 2. it signifies Toriyama's intention with Freeza; he likely has no plans for the character and just wants to have him around as a plot catalyst or for gags. It's regrettable, but that's just how it is, I think.

[Marlowe89]

Saiyan nature isn't fighting.

Saiyan nature is absolutely fighting.

Their culture has a marauder-like disposition, but that's only because it's the most useful role you could bestow on a race that takes pleasure in battle. According to Toriyama, Saiyans are born with an innate talent/tendency for it, are individualists at heart, and consider playing to be fighting even in adolescence.

Whether you're trying to spin this as a modern change isn't something I'm especially interested in discussing, and also has very little to do with the themes that the movie conveys as a stand-alone work.

[garfield15]

Still think that Freeza using the dragon balls to be a bit taller is completely out of character. And his justification for not wishing for immorality makes no sense either. He will die eventually so wouldn't he want to avoid going back to hell by wishing for immorality?

I think the original dialogue indicated more of the line of realizing being immortal doesn't mean he can't get trapped forever.

[Doctor.]

Saiyan nature is absolutely fighting.

Their culture has a marauder-like disposition, but that's only because it's the most useful role you could bestow on a race that takes pleasure in battle. According to Toriyama, Saiyans are often born with an innate talent/tendency for it, are individualists at heart, and consider playing to be fighting even in adolescence.

Whether you're trying to spin this as a modern change isn't something I'm especially interested in discussing, and also has very little to do with the themes that the movie conveys as a stand-alone work.

Saiyan nature, in the original series, is not just fighting. It's fighting for self-gratification though torture and murder. Goku sets himself apart from the rest by fighting for self-improvement. That's the entire point of his character arc in the Saiyan and Namek arcs and also the entire point of Vegeta's self-realization by the end of the Boo arc.

I don't care what George Lucas 2.0 had to say in 2017 because that's part of the problem. And this distinction about what exactly makes a Saiyan is important, I'm not sure why you're trying to dismiss it. The movie is not stand-alone, it's an installment in an on-going series.

[PFM18]

If a movie showed you a different side to Hitler where he actually cared about his loved ones and tried to save them before his demise, then it'd get accused of whitewashing Hitler, which curiously enough is exactly some of the criticisms the film 'The Downfall' got.

So Bardock, who was explicitly acknowledged as being different from the rest of the warmonger Saiyans,(and even this being a recent change of heart) somehow gives the entire Saiyan race a different connotation and so Broly can't contrast with them? The movie not only goes out of it's way to assert that Bardock is still the exception to the rule, where the rule is that Saiyans are vicious and brutal, but it doesn't portray a single other Saiyan during the flashback in this light. They literally show the Saiyans in the act of eradicating a race when they find out that the Saiyan race had been lost. But because they show sympathy towards this, that makes them suddenly whitewashed? The Saiyans being a race that ruthlessly slaughters races for their own gain, is depicted very clearly throughout the movie, and goes out of it's way to make clear that any Saiyan who isn't a ruthless monster is the exception. "Bardock it isn't like a Saiyan to care about their child."

The movie literally never portrays Saiyan society as anything other than the warmongers that you originally described. Bardock's actions alone don't imply that the entirety of the Saiyan race has a different connotation, nor do the Saiyans giving a shit about their planet's destruction. Saiyan society is portrayed the same way that it always has been, and it isn't whitewashed in any capacity.

I've already said I liked the movie and it's in my top 5 Dragon Ball films. Can I not criticize what I think is a fairly lackluster script without accusations that I'm complaining for the sake of it? Must I be completely on-board with every idea that a movie I like has to present or else I'm just complaining for the sake of complaining? I honestly don't know how you can function with that sort of worldview.

Not saying that it you cannot criticize the script of this movie nor do you need to be "completely on board with every idea" of a movie that you enjoy. All I'm saying, is that from my point of view, that it seems you are so pessimistic towards modern DB that you make a conscious effort to try to find things to complain about, even to the point of blatant hypocrisy. This is another example that you will levy complaints against it regardless of whether it is a nitpick that is negligible and not worth acknowledging, or if it is just logically incoherent. Almost every criticism I have seen from you, could also reasonably be said of the original but you come up with every excuse as to how it's somehow different here. Generally, you go out of your way to complain enough that I think "complaining for the sake of it, again" is fair to say.

[Marlowe89]

Saiyan nature, in the original series, is not just fighting. It's fighting for self-gratification though torture and murder.

I don't need modern stories to contradict this part. The original series already does that for me.

What you're describing is clearly more akin to Saiyan nurture, specifically cultural nurture, rather than nature. If sadism was in their nature, Vegeta (and arguably, even Goku) would have been wholly incapable of being anything but. The fact that Vegeta specifically develops and changes over the course of the story thoroughly undermines your point about Saiyans having an innate tendency for torture, and the larger themes about Goku distinguishing himself from the brutal mindset perpetuated by his race is upheld equally as well - if not better - through that mindset having distinctly cultural origins rather than physiological.

The movie is not stand-alone, it's an installment in an on-going series.

If you can't assess a story's themes by its own self-contained merits, I don't know what to tell you. Those are very much coherently presented solely within the context of the film.

[Doctor.]

So Bardock, who was explicitly acknowledged as being different from the rest of the warmonger Saiyans,(and even this being a recent change of heart) somehow gives the entire Saiyan race a different connotation

Yes, when his goodbye to Goku is juxtaposed with the destruction of the planet and there's sad music playing in the background. The intent behind the scene is clear enough. I shouldn't have to explain whether or not the Saiyans are portrayed as sympathetic when their demise is so emotionally charged.

Not saying that it you cannot criticize the script of this movie nor do you need to be "completely on board with every idea" of a movie that you enjoy. All I'm saying, is that from my point of view, that it seems you are so pessimistic towards modern DB that you make a conscious effort to try to find things to complain about, even to the point of blatant hypocrisy. This is another example that you will levy complaints against it regardless of whether it is a nitpick that is negligible and not worth acknowledging, or if it is just logically incoherent. Almost every criticism I have seen from you, could also reasonably be said of the original but you come up with every excuse as to how it's somehow different here. Generally, you go out of your way to complain enough that I think "complaining for the sake of it, again" is fair to say.

I could make the same kind of posts about the old Toei films, about GT or even the parts of the manga I like the least, but why would I? Those are 20 year old stories. They're not relevant (but I still make posts about them in other threads, I guess you just haven't seen any; I've criticized the 22nd Budokai and the Cell arcs more time than I can count). The Broly movie has just come out. Pointing out the parts I don't like about the movie and modern Dragon Ball can hopefully open other people's eyes to stop supporting what I consider to be bad stories.

It seems to me like you just don't like it when other people complain about what you like. You seriously need to work on that because it's not the first time you complain about other people's criticisms; I barely see anyone else doing that sort of stuff. I've actually been rather tame on this movie. I posted my thoughts when it was first leaked, which were largely neutral, and then posted a few thoughts every now and again, most of which came up in conversation with some friends and I thought they'd be worth mentioning here. You act as if I'm shitting on this movie at every turn, when I've been lukewarm about it at worst.

If sadism was in their nature, Vegeta (and arguably, even Goku) would have been wholly incapable of being anything but. The fact that Vegeta specifically develops and changes over the course of the story thoroughly undermines your point about Saiyans having an innate tendency for torture, and the larger themes about Goku distinguishing himself from the brutal mindset perpetuated by his race is upheld equally as well - if not better - through that mindset having distinctly cultural origins rather than physiological.

Goku hit his head and it took Vegeta until the end of the series to become a half-decent individual. And in the arc where he does change, he still murders innocents to feed his own ego. Whether it be nature or nurture, it doesn't make your point any stronger when Broly was still under Paragus' influence.

If you can't assess a story's themes by its own self-contained merits, I don't know what to tell you. Those are very much coherently presented solely within the context of the film.

I did. I prefer not to ignore the rest of the series, because that's a disingenuous method of judging an on-going story, but even by its own, the movie is thematically all over the place.

[Marlowe89]

Whether it be nature or nurture, it doesn't make your point any stronger when Broly was still under Paragus' influence.

You're flip-flopping at this point.

First you claim that Toriyama's perspective on the matter is irrelevant because "m-modern stuff doesn't count!", even though it's predicated on Saiyan brutality being a result of nurture rather than nature, and now you're trying to pretend that the distinction is irrelevant. No, it's entirely relevant -- Paragus' influence has nothing to do with traditional Saiyan warmongering, it's all very personal and rooted in his desire for vengeance. You're trying to draw an analogy between the two where an analogy simply doesn't exist. Your original point about Broly being contrasted with the Saiyans to emphasize his role as a sympathetic character is blatantly false. The film doesn't do that, it's doing the opposite; it's contrasting Broly with Paragus' unique, individualized fatherhood to emphasize his role as a sympathetic character.

I didn't imply that you had to ignore the original manga, I'm just reiterating that it's a thematically self-contained story. Nothing whatsoever in the movie contradicts the themes in Toriyama's work.

[Doctor.]

You're flip-flopping at this point.

No, I'm not. My point was that the movie is thematically incoherent because it attempts to portray both the Saiyans and Broly sympathetically, and that the two are mutually-exclusive ideas because the culprit behind Broly's tragic upbringing is Saiyan society, personified in this case through Paragus later on. You say Paragus doesn't represent the Saiyans because he has his own unique, personal goal. Yes, he does. He's still a barbaric, brutal, self-serving Saiyan, like all the rest, consistent with the way Saiyans had been portrayed in the original series - he may have exiled himself from Saiyan society, but he's much more representative of what a Saiyan is than Broly. The discussion eventually ventured into this topic of whether or not Broly truly is a Saiyan at heart like the movie tries to portray him as, and this lead into the question of whether modern and old Dragon Ball have the same conception of what exactly is a Saiyan, but I've been completely consistent in my criticisms.

[Marlowe89]

He's still a barbaric, brutal, self-serving Saiyan, like all the rest

But that doesn't matter. That's not what the movie was contrasting or conveying to the audience.

Broly and Paragus are both primitive individuals, and both have traits that we know are innate to Saiyans according to Toriyama. The flashbacks to Broly's childhood are crucial to the dynamic between himself and his father; they show that, yes, Broly indeed enjoys fighting, but Paragus' obsession with conditioning his son into a brutal killing machine stems from his desire for revenge on King Vegeta. That doesn't speak to the brutality of Saiyans in general, it speaks to Paragus as an individual. It sets Broly's upbringing apart from that of other Saiyans because he's not being trained to conquer planets, he's being trained to exact personal retribution on a very specific person/lineage.

Paragus might have traits typical of Saiyans on Planet Vegeta, but the trait that was used to contrast him with his son - and thereby portray his son as a sympathetic character - is specific to Paragus. There's no such mutual exclusivity between Broly and Saiyan society in those terms.

[Doctor.]

That's not what the movie was contrasting or conveying to the audience.

What the movie was trying to convey doesn't matter, if it ignores or doesn't address everything else that doesn't play in to the themes it's trying to develop. That's why I say the movie is thematically incoherent. I can appreciate trying to make a point, but just because a movie has substance doesn't mean that everything in it is automatically cohesive and complementing the narrative.

Broly and Paragus are both primitive individuals, and both have traits that we know are innate to Saiyans according to Toriyama. The flashbacks to Broly's childhood are crucial to the dynamic between himself and his father; they show that, yes, Broly indeed enjoys fighting, but Paragus' obsession with conditioning his son into a brutal killing machine stems from his desire for revenge on King Vegeta. That doesn't speak to the brutality of Saiyans in general, it speaks to Paragus as an individual. It sets Broly's upbringing apart from that of other Saiyans because he's not being trained to conquer planets, he's being trained to exact personal retribution on a very specific person/lineage.

I don't see how this goes against anything that I've said. Yes, the main point is the relationship between Broly and Paragus on a personal level, the contrast between the two is what makes Broly's character arc in this movie. I'm not disputing that Broly's arc is competently done. But beneath the surface, there's the fact that the circumstances that allowed them to "bond" originated from Saiyan society, the same society Paragus is such a good representative of in spite of his cast away status, and the same society the movie tries to make seem sympathetic. There's a thematic conflict if you look into the subtext enough instead of just taking the themes as they are presented to you.

[Marlowe89]

I'm not disputing that Broly's arc is competently done. But beneath the surface, there's the fact that the circumstances that allowed them to "bond" originated from Saiyan society, the same society Paragus is such a good representative of in spite of his cast away status, and the same society the movie tries to make seem sympathetic.

That's exactly the part I've been disagreeing with.

We have no way of correlating Saiyan society with Paragus' unique tendency for revenge. Would many, or even most, other Saiyans have reacted in the same way were they in Paragus' shoes? Given how they were portrayed, no, probably not. He can certainly be a model citizen and still have personal traits that set him apart from his brethren - to be clear, nothing in the original work implies that all Saiyans have identical personalities either - and indeed, Paragus' personal desire for revenge and how it affects Broly's upbringing is what the movie's themes are predicated on. It doesn't matter if you're looking for subtext or not.

Again, you can make Broly sympathetic and you can make Saiyan society as a whole sympathetic without having those two ideas come into any kind of conflict. And I don't see how they do.

[Doctor.]

We have no way of correlating Saiyan society with Paragus' unique tendency for revenge. Would many, or even most, other Saiyans have reacted in the same way were they in Paragus' shoes? Given how they were portrayed, no, probably not. He can certainly be a model citizen and still have personal traits that set him apart from his brethren - to be clear, nothing in the original work implies that all Saiyans have identical personalities either - and indeed, Paragus' personal desire for revenge and how it affects Broly's upbringing is what the movie's themes are predicated on. It doesn't matter if you're looking for a subtext or not.

Again, you can make Broly sympathetic and you can make Saiyan society as a whole sympathetic without having those two ideas come into any kind of conflict. And I don't see how they do.

Would other Saiyans have acted in the same way if their ridiculously powerful son got exiled from the planet for no reason? If King Vegeta is of any indication, we can extrapolate the answer to be yes; both king Vegeta and Paragus seemed to obsess a whole deal about how strong their kids were. The original series certainly implies that all the Saiyans are self-serving brutes, and Paragus fills that role to a T. I don't like ignoring details simply because the movie wasn't written with them in mind. Obviously it wasn't, the point is that it should have been. The Jiren vs UI Goku fight in the anime also works in isolation, for example; the fight's themes aren't predicated on anything else other than the clash between Goku and Jiren's personalities. But the fight is still tonally and thematically all over the place when analysed in conjunction with the rest of the series. I don't have to necessarily accept everything a movie presents me and take its themes as coherent just because they appear so at the surface.

They come into conflict because the nature of Saiyan society both 1. lead to his exile, and 2. affects Paragus' actions and personality. Agree to disagree at this point.

[Marlowe89]

Would other Saiyans have acted in the same way if their ridiculously powerful son got exiled from the planet for no reason?

I'll elaborate on why I think the answer is most likely "no, a lot of them wouldn't": Saiyans are generally subservient to those with any kind of power over them. Most of them didn't bother to question Freeza's reason for calling them back to their planet, despite Bardock's suspicions. Nappa was fiercely loyal to Prince Vegeta. Even then, despite their general tendencies, the movie is remarkably clear about portraying them with distinct, individual traits in addition to the broader cultural ones.

While I don't doubt that most Saiyans would take pride in the power of their offspring, Paragus being obsessed with the strength of his son to the point of vowing revenge on King Vegeta could very easily be a quirk specific to Paragus. The film never goes out of its way to establish any kind of connection between Paragus wanting revenge and that aspect of his character being a common Saiyan thing, so that's why I think the argument about Saiyan society informing his need for retaliation is seriously stretching it.

The original series certainly implies that all the Saiyans are self-serving brutes

Right, but we're talking about Paragus' vengeance. Saiyans can be, and have been, both self-serving and subservient enough to not retaliate against their superiors in circumstances that go against their favor; likely out of fear.

I'm willing to agree to disagree. I just think the line you're trying to draw in terms of societal influence is far too ill-defined in the source material to make any judgments about thematic relevance.