emperior wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:41 amThe wall supposedly talks about the manga because it has some stuff which is manga-exclusive, like the God of Destruction exhibition match, Zamasu multiplying and Trunks being on par with SS3 Goku in his SS2 form.
But I agree the phrasing is a bit ambiguous so as not to say that only the manga version of Super is canonical.
The problem is that there can be no ambiguity. So I'll ask again, which version are we supposed to take canonical? And if it is Toyotaro's version, why wouldn't I be able to pick the movies instead? Isn't Toriyama's works the ones we should be considering? Where's the "just what the authors did and nothing else matters" thought here? Or is there a level of hypocrisy/contradiction when it comes to Dragon Ball Super and its many continuities? If we are to take just Toriyama's story, then I think it should be very clear which continuity we should be taking as canonical when it comes to Battle of Gods and Resurrection F, yet we still have debates over it, people preferring the movies, manga or the anime. If there is an official canon, why is this still such thing?
emperior wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:41 amEither way we have plenty of interviews of Toriyama with Toyotaro in the collected volumes of the manga, while we have none of Toriyama with the anime staff. And Toriyama praised Toyotaro’s depiction of the story.
The fact Super’s manga is the same format as the original manga from Toriyama should make it the logical sequel to it, as it’s not like people reading the manga and then switching to the anime would keep the same experience.
And Toriyama supervising and correcting it would give it some more legitimacy - for example he sketched out rough boards for the U6 tournament gag, and of course he kept Toyotaro’s version of the ring so logically that would mean the egyptian-like ring is the true setting of the tournament.
Conversely, we have Toyotaro depicting kid Vegeta with bangs and him failing to mention Tarble and that Namekuseijin book in its manga. The latter being something we would come to learn it is seemingly from Toriyama. Curiously, it does appear in Toei's version. So should we really take these supervising and correcting that seriously as any hint of canonicity? What else Toyotaro may have failed to mention that comes from Toriyama?
Anyway, none of those things actually mean the manga version is the one to be taken as canonical once it is possible to tell or continue a story through different media and/or methods.
emperior wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:41 amAbout DB online, I consider it because Toriyama was heavily involved with it and modern material, being written by Toriyama, borrows stuff from that game - such as Tenshinan having a Dojo, Mr Satan making movies or, more importantly, the design of the Yardratians seen recently in the manga.
The game is completely dead and it wasn’t even directly mentioned when they talked about the designs of the Yardratians, but considering how Toriyama has a track record of being strangely consistent with things he mentioned in past interviews and stuff that then appears in his story, so for example I think if in his head Goku’s death happens in a final fight with Vegeta then that thing is canonical until it’s contradicted in the story.
For me, ultimately, Dragon Ball is the work of one man (even if he of course had and still has editors and such) and only Toriyama can mess with its story.
An official canon would make everyone to think like that. But as I said, a lot of people don't take Dragon Ball Online as canonical work, which means, at the very least, if there is a canon, it is so loose and vague that we could hardly say there is canon at all, as people can take or ignore certain works. If we are to take just Toriyama's story, then we are to take all Toriyama's story (except those intentionally not to be part of something, like Neko Majin. As there is official statement saying it is meant to be a parody), not arbritrarily selecting this one or that one. That would be "headcanon".
Matches Malone wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:59 am
I don't think you need someone to explicitly say there's one to know it exists. Saying DB doesn't have a canon to follow is like saying it's like the Simpsons or tom and Jerry where anything goes and everything can be watched in any order. Although all stories are "official", not all of them are taken into account nowadays. For example, we've got a new rebooted Broly, which means his original movies aren't taken into account as stories that happened. Vegeta was taught fusion in Broly, meaning that Fusion reborn didn't take place within the canon. If cooler is also rebooted in Super, that'll make his 2 original movies irrelevant. Sure, everything is official, but not everything happened.
Classical example of confusing continuity and canonicity, and they couldn't be any more different.
No. To say Dragon Ball doesn't have a canon does not equal to saying it works like like Tom and Jerry and etc. A continuity is the flow of time and events in a certain order. Tom and Jerry doesn't have a continuity, its episodes aren't connected with each other.
Dragon Ball have (a lot of) continuity. One goes from Dragon Ball Minus up until Dragon Ball Online, for example. The canon would dictate which
other works are acknowledged into it. Because this is what canon concerns about. Not the original work, but all the other works within the franchise. And it surely has nothing to do with continuity.
But isn't that simple because, like I said, Dragon Ball does offer the "alternate dimension" concept, which outright throws the canonicity concept through the window, because this method allows the possibility of characters from different dimension to meet each other. And here comes the tricky part: just because those characters met each other, doesn't mean the events (from the characters of the other dimension) will be acknowledged too. If Turles had appeared in Future Trunks saga using Goku Black's rift, that wouldn't mean Movie 3 suddenly happened in the Dragon Ball Super continuity, so where would be the canon now?
The usually regarded as the "main Spider-Man" is Peter Parker, that doesn't mean Miles Morales is not canonical/doesn't exist. The latter does exist in another Universe and they can meet each other, but that doesn't mean whatever happens/happened in the Miles Morales' universe is canonical/happened to/in Peter Parker's universe.
So you see, once a franchise have the "alternate dimension" concept, it completely tears apart all sense of canonicity. It may not have happened in the "main one" but it still there as a legit event. And this is the case with the movies of Dragon Ball. Once Toriyama said they happened in a different dimension, the events seen in the movies became as legit as the one you call "main events". They didn't happen in the manga, but somewhere out there they are real, not what-if.
Scsigs wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:17 amThe movies before Battle of Gods are either in alternate universes, or timelines, since most of them have active continuity errors that prevent them from being a part of the main timeline & the rest were made with the intention of not being in there as well
But there would be absolutely no reason to try to place the movies in the "main timeline" as Toriyama himself said they didn't happened it. What Daizenshuu 6 did was just to give a bit of context when it says "this movie takes place right here because this and that", but it is not trying to say that that movie happened in the "main timeline". It is just to situate the viewers into the context of the movie and nothing else.
.
