Manga 'retcons'(?)

[Witty User Name]

Didn't Trunks originally say the cyborgs that would destroy the world were 19 & 20, not 17 & 18?

Yes, and this is a know ''plothole'' in the manga -- I think the anime corrected it, IIRC?

I think it qualifies as a retcon, not a plot hole but I think you're correct about the anime correcting it.

VERY BROADLY speaking, it's the correct term. But it's almost never used in such broad way.

A better term in this instance would be "reveal". I think.

I'm usually all for being pedantic, but in this context given the nature of the subject, I think having an overly exact definition is fruitless. A hot dog can arguably fall under the category of a sandwich but if you ask someone for any kind of sandwich would you want them to give you a hot dog?

A reveal gives the audience information it didn't have before. A retcon supplants old information and acts like it was always the case. In this case, Toriyama changing the cyborgs numbers would fall under the category of retcon.

I am pretty sure it's a plot hole.

Or maybe it's both (a plothole AND a retcon).

[Witty User Name]

We can't say for sure that "Toyotaro just draws", as you put it.

My copies of the manga volumes always state:

ART BY - Toyotarou
STORY BY - Akira Toriyama

You're suggesting maybe it's more complex than that?

[Omori]

We can't say for sure that "Toyotaro just draws", as you put it.

My copies of the manga volumes always state:

ART BY - Toyotarou
STORY BY - Akira Toriyama

You're suggesting maybe it's more complex than that?

As for the Japanese volumes it's like this:
原作 (gensaku) = "original work" (referring to the original 42 volumes): Akira Toriyama
漫画 = manga: Toyotaro

Using "Story by" is a bit misleading here as Toriyama and Toyotaro both have their input in the story.

[ABED]

I am pretty sure it's a plot hole.

Or maybe it's both (a plothole AND a retcon).

As best as I understand the term, a plot hole is where there is an inconsistency that essentially unravels the story because it goes against established in story logic.

Nothing falls apart here. This is a garden variety mistake.

[Grimlock]

My copies of the manga volumes always state:

ART BY - Toyotarou
STORY BY - Akira Toriyama

They state a very generic thing. Not much different than seeing Toriyama being credited in works he merely made designs or wasn't involved at all.

You're suggesting maybe it's more complex than that?

Most certainly. And I already provided one example in my previous post.

[Lord Beerus]

The only one that sticks out to my mind was when Future Trunks stated that #19 and #20 were the artificial humans responsible for destroying his world, only for it later it turn out to be #17 and #18. Why the narrative shifted to them as the antagonists of Future Trunks timeline is never explained in-universe. It makes even less sense when you consider how time travel works in the Dragon Ball universe.

Some of the stupid shit that happens in the manga is usually just left unexplained by Toriyama. Hell, Toriyama has become guilty of introducing bad retcons in the more recent years.

[Witty User Name]

The only one that sticks out to my mind was when Future Trunks stated that #19 and #20 were the artificial humans responsible for destroying his world, only for it later it turn out to be #17 and #18. Why the narrative shifted to them as the antagonists of Future Trunks timeline is never explained in-universe. It makes even less sense when you consider how time travel works in the Dragon Ball universe.

It's a plothole. Look at this detailed explanation:

Spoiler:

For an out-of-universe explanation to the situation, the fact of the matter is that Toriyama had initially wanted to have #19 and Gero (#20) as the villains that Trunks was warning about, because he intended to have them as the primary villains of the arc. However, Kazuhiko Torishima, who was Toriyama's editor during the Dragon Ball manga up to the 23rd Budoukai, contacted him and said that they weren't good villains, as they were a "geezer and a fatso", which led to Toriyama creating #17 and #18. Torishima contacted him again after they were introduced and commented that they weren't good villains either as they were just "some brats", which led to Toriyama creating Cell.

So it was initially that it was supposed to be #19 and #20, but Toriyama being told to change it led to #17 and #18 being the Artificial Humans that Trunks was warning them about, We know it's not a matter of them being numbered differently in Trunks' time, for when he comes back in time a second time, he specifically names and describes #17 and #18, as he commented on #17 being a black-haired boy around his age with a scarf and #18 as a cute girl.

So it is a retcon of their numbering and a plot hole given that they were clearly referred to as #19 and #20 before, then pushed to have always been #17 and #18.

[ankokudaishogun]

It's a plothole. Look at this detailed explanation

the explanation defines it as a retcon, not a plot hole.

[Witty User Name]

It's a plothole. Look at this detailed explanation

the explanation defines it as a retcon, not a plot hole.

It defines it as both. Reproducing the last sentence:

Spoiler:

So it is a retcon of their numbering and a plot hole given that they were clearly referred to as #19 and #20 before, then pushed to have always been #17 and #18.

I even bolded it for you.

[ankokudaishogun]

Look, in THIS specific instance it's just a retcon.

No plot-hole, because the "hole" has been covered by retconning Trunk to always having never talked about #19 and #20.

Unless you start going headcanon that the first Trunks we see is a Trunks from a different timeline where the Androids were #19 and #20.
But NOWHERE this is stated or suggested.

It's ONLY a retcon in its most common use: retroactively changing previously given information.

[Witty User Name]

Look, in THIS specific instance it's just a retcon.

No plot-hole, because the "hole" has been covered by retconning Trunk to always having never talked about #19 and #20.

Unless you start going headcanon that the first Trunks we see is a Trunks from a different timeline where the Androids were #19 and #20.
But NOWHERE this is stated or suggested.

It's ONLY a retcon in its most common use: retroactively changing previously given information.

I will say this only one more time, because it's clear that a) you don't get what I'm saying, or b) can't read properly. Probably it's a combination of both. Either way, we have an idiom/expression here in Brazil that says ''I will draw if you can't get it'' or something to that effect. So, here is a VIDEO shwing how it's a inconsistency/plot hole:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVlY4XUb0RU.

I hope you can explain what's wrong with the video's arguments.

[ankokudaishogun]

No-kaiohshin-damn-where #19 and #20 being the one Trunks referred in his first explanation is addressed, at least in-story.
This included the extended canon of databooks, games and everything.

It makes quite clear it's not a plot-hole(something necessary to the story but not explained) but a retcon.
We even know what caused the retcon out-of-story: Toriyama changing the enemies of the arc because editorial pressure.

If somewhere the point of the Numbers referred by Trunks was addressed, it would be a different thing.
But even in-story nobody act like #19 and #20 weren't the ones Trunks did talk about.

So, yeah. It's a retcon. Trunks was retconned to never giving the specific Numbers of the Androids.
That's it.

[Witty User Name]

No-kaiohshin-damn-where #19 and #20 being the one Trunks referred in his first explanation is addressed, at least in-story.
This included the extended canon of databooks, games and everything.

It makes quite clear it's not a plot-hole(something necessary to the story but not explained) but a retcon.
We even know what caused the retcon out-of-story: Toriyama changing the enemies of the arc because editorial pressure.

If somewhere the point of the Numbers referred by Trunks was addressed, it would be a different thing.
But even in-story nobody act like #19 and #20 weren't the ones Trunks did talk about.

So, yeah. It's a retcon. Trunks was retconned to never giving the specific Numbers of the Androids.
That's it.

Here's the bit you need to adress, from the video:

''However, by this point in the story, 19 and 20 were already stated to be the Androids from the future, but rather than making some sort of explanation for why 17 and 18 were actually the Androids from the future, in classic Toriyama fashion, he choose to ignore this and pretend it never happened''.

[MechaTrunks]

• The major one "one day passes in the present, one day passes in the future" (this one simply destroys everything we know about AGES and cannot, under any circumstances, be considered. Unless you want a completely broken timeline, of course).

?? This was just an exception for that TL because it was weak due to Zamatsu's actions. It wasn't something meant to be interpreted as a rule on how time travel works, but as an EXCEPTION that prevented them to do what Goku thought was possible.

• That Trunks explains he knows Taiyo-ken because Gohan taught him, even though Gohan most certainly didn't know about that technique.

Gohan knew about the Taiyo-ken since Namek (Krilin used it a lot, also in front of him), and it's only logical that he would learn it in a context where they had to run/hide from the androids.

And, in a way, Toyotaro using Toei's Yadorat kinda contradicts Dragon Ball Online, as they don't have such appearance in there. He should have sticked with just Dragon Ball Online's design.

He's free to stick with the desing he feels more appropiate, and considering Toriyama is supervising, I wouldn't say that the DBOnline design is the right one here.

Regards!

[Grimlock]

?? This was just an exception for that TL because it was weak due to Zamatsu's actions. It wasn't something meant to be interpreted as a rule on how time travel works, but as an EXCEPTION that prevented them to do what Goku thought was possible.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

Gohan knew about the Taiyo-ken since Namek (Krilin used it a lot, also in front of him), and it's only logical that he would learn it in a context where they had to run/hide from the androids.

Is that right? Then please provide all the instances Taiyo-ken was used during Freeza saga. I only remember that one Kuririn used it which obviously Gohan didn't learn it, since they were flying away from a pink behemoth while trying to protect Dende. The last thing that could happen is someone learning anything in that situation.

He's free to stick with the desing he feels more appropiate, and considering Toriyama is supervising, I wouldn't say that the DBOnline design is the right one here.

I agree. Toei is above Toriyama. So no matter what, what(ever) Toriyama did isn't the right one here.

[MechaTrunks]

?? This was just an exception for that TL because it was weak due to Zamatsu's actions. It wasn't something meant to be interpreted as a rule on how time travel works, but as an EXCEPTION that prevented them to do what Goku thought was possible.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

Gohan knew about the Taiyo-ken since Namek (Krilin used it a lot, also in front of him), and it's only logical that he would learn it in a context where they had to run/hide from the androids.

Is that right? Then please provide all the instances Taiyo-ken was used during Freeza saga. I only remember that one Kuririn used it which obviously Gohan didn't learn it, since they were flying away from a pink behemoth while trying to protect Dende. The last thing that could happen is someone learning anything in that situation.

He's free to stick with the desing he feels more appropiate, and considering Toriyama is supervising, I wouldn't say that the DBOnline design is the right one here.

I agree. Toei is above Toriyama. So no matter what, what(ever) Toriyama did isn't the right one here.

Re-read the explanation Bulma gives on why they can't go to Future Trunks timeline as they please.
It has to do with Black and his power.

Regarding the tayoken, Krillin says that it's an easy technique that anyone can learn.
Both Krillin and Goku learend it on their own, and as I was saying, Gohan learned of its existence in Namek because he saw how Krillin used It.

Is It really that difficult to conceive that Gohan could have learned It on his own during the years he had to hide from the androids?

I think it's very easy to justify that Gohan would have done this.

PD: Toei above Toriyama? LOL
Toei writes dragon ball as if they were doing some cheap fanservice.
We're Lucky that Toyotarou and Toriyama are doing the much superior manga.

[Grimlock]

Re-read the explanation Bulma gives on why they can't go to Future Trunks timeline as they please.
It has to do with Black and his power.

Just did. And that's not what I understood. Goku wanted to go back to the future to the exact same instant he left, but Bulma says that the Time Machine is linked to the future in general, not to a very specific time. It doesn't mention Goku Black and his power at all.

PD: Toei above Toriyama? LOL

I was being sarcast, obviously. The right one to be used was solely Dragon Ball Online's design due to what I said in previous posts.

Toei writes dragon ball as if they were doing some cheap fanservice.

Well, if Freeza, Trunks, Vegetto and Broly coming back as well as two tournaments in a row are anything to go by, it seems that Toriyama (and Toyotaro in Vegetto's case) himself is also writing Dragon Ball as if he was doing some cheap fanservice.

[MechaTrunks]

Just did. And that's not what I understood. Goku wanted to go back to the future to the exact same instant he left, but Bulma says that the Time Machine is linked to the future in general, not to a very specific time. It doesn't mention Goku Black and his power at all.

I've re-read the scene and it's true that Bulma doesn't say anything regarding Black being t'he cause, but she does say that the link between the present TL and Futures Trunk's one is very weak and that they will only be able to make another trip to the future.

Of course it's just Bulma's opinions on the subject, but I always thought that this 'weak link' is what prevented to implement Goku's idea.

Well, if Freeza, Trunks, Vegetto and Broly coming back as well as two tournaments in a row are anything to go by, it seems that Toriyama (and Toyotaro in Vegetto's case) himself is also writing Dragon Ball as if he was doing some cheap fanservice.

Well, in the first part of Dragon Ball we had 3 tournaments and here in Super one was a battle royal so it's at least something different XD

Yeah, there are some fanservicey things (they also were in Z), but the writting is at least comparable to the original manga, something that can't be said for the anime.

[Grimlock]

I've re-read the scene and it's true that Bulma doesn't say anything regarding Black being t'he cause, but she does say that the link between the present TL and Futures Trunk's one is very weak and that they will only be able to make another trip to the future.

Of course it's just Bulma's opinions on the subject, but I always thought that this 'weak link' is what prevented to implement Goku's idea.

Yes but the link getting weaker doesn't have anything to do with "one day in the present = one day in the future" like you originally implied. The context does seem to mean that it is something to be "interpreted as a rule" in-universe. Which, well, as my previous and intensive discussion already showed, will just bring a huge problem to the timeline.

Well, in the first part of Dragon Ball we had 3 tournaments and here in Super one was a battle royal so it's at least something different XD

Dragon Ball unfortunately had three tournaments, but it also had three sagas with a plot. Dragon Ball Super had two tournaments and just one saga with a plot.

But make no mistake, had Dragon Ball been released nowadays, maybe even "balancing" with three sagas with an actual plot, it wouldn't be a wise choice to make three tournaments too. Also, we have to consider the time it was released, back in the 80s it was another time. We're not in the 80s anymore to keep doing just tournaments inspired by old martial movies or something, without any story or that don't lead to something else.

[MechaTrunks]

Yes but the link getting weaker doesn't have anything to do with "one day in the present = one day in the future" like you originally implied. The context does seem to mean that it is something to be "interpreted as a rule" in-universe. Which, well, as my previous and intensive discussion already showed, will just bring a huge problem to the timeline.

Yeah, you're right that they're two separate sentences.
I don't think this was the case in Z so in that sense you're right, this seems a retcon.

Dragon Ball unfortunately had three tournaments, but it also had three sagas with a plot. Dragon Ball Super had two tournaments and just one saga with a plot.

But make no mistake, had Dragon Ball been released nowadays, maybe even "balancing" with three sagas with an actual plot, it wouldn't be a wise choice to make three tournaments too. Also, we have to consider the time it was released, back in the 80s it was another time. We're not in the 80s anymore to keep doing just tournaments inspired by old martial movies or something, without any story or that don't lead to something else.

I think you're being a bit unfair here. In Super there are 3 sagas that have been skipped in the manga for marketing reasons, but are still part of the story.
And now we're having the Moro saga in the manga, so even not counting the unadapted stories it would be 2 tournaments & 2 sagas with plot, like in Dragon Ball.
And the ToP, despite being a tournament, can't be compared to one in terms of how things develop. It's was a battle royale.

That being said, I sincerely hope that the saga after the Moro one is not a tournament...