Manga 'retcons'(?)

Discussion specifically regarding the "Dragon Ball Super" TV series premiering July 2015 in Japan, including individual threads for each episode.

Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help

Witty User Name
Banned
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Witty User Name » Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:46 pm

ankokudaishogun wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 4:52 pm
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.
Since I am a stubborn motherfuc*ker, I will say one more thing. IF IT ISN'T A PLOTHOLE, WHY THE ANIME CHANGED IT? Check out episode 122 and see if Trunks even mentions the numbers of the Androids. He doesn't. Toei's writers must have realized this was A STORY MISTAKE and changed it. The manga, however, states 19 and 20 especifically and says they killed Dr. Gero (which creates even more a plothole, I think).

If not, and I am wrong, why would the anime omit such a key piece of information?

MechaTrunks
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:26 am

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by MechaTrunks » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:45 am

Grimlock wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:45 pm
MechaTrunks wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:54 am
The tayoken is an easy technique that both Goku and Krilin learned on their own.
Alright, I went to check the full history of this and you're all halfway correct.

Tenshinhan uses Taiyo-ken twice before anyone else could imitate it. The first time he blinded everyone (it's already a bit of a stretch to think someone can learn a technique while blinded, let alone when you're running for your life from a pink behemoth while protecting a kid but anyway). The second time he uses it was against Goku, but the latter was wearing sunglasses, blinding everyone else. Goku literally saw the technique so that he could learn/practice it, it was not "on his own".

Kuririn first uses Taiyo-ken against Dodoria, despite being blinded or not being present all the times the technique was used previously. But if Kuririn can use it despite all odds against him, then probably Gohan somehow learned it when Kuririn used it even though he was busy saving his and Dende's lives. But the fact we don't even get to see Gohan using the technique does make it hard to believe that's the case.
Well, the fact that the technique blinds you as a result doesn't mean that one can't see the preparation of the technique (how to position he hands, how to concentrate the ki on them before the big flashing light comes out, etc.).
In the end what matters is that canonically (Krilin explains it when Cell uses the tayoken to hide) it's one of the easiest techniques one can learn in the series, one that Gohan knew it's existence of and one that made a lot of sense he would learn in the context of constantly hidding from the two androids.
I mean, I find completely logical that you would have taken a different path regarding Trunks than the one the manga took, but you can't say that the path the manga took is ilogical because it can be justified fairly well with the previously stablished canon of the series.
Witty User Name wrote:Since I am a stubborn motherfuc*ker, I will say one more thing. IF IT ISN'T A PLOTHOLE, WHY THE ANIME CHANGED IT? Check out episode 122 and see if Trunks even mentions the numbers of the Androids. He doesn't. Toei's writers must have realized this was A STORY MISTAKE and changed it. The manga, however, states 19 and 20 especifically and says they killed Dr. Gero (which creates even more a plothole, I think).

If not, and I am wrong, why would the anime omit such a key piece of information?
I think you're right but for the wrong reasons. The anime chaning something from the manga and making it worse it's the usual norm, so it being different on the manga than on the anime doesn't mean it's an error from the manga.
But on the other hand, Trunks speaks of #19 and #20 and then when he sees #17 and #18 (the ones he clearly says are the androids from his future) he doesn't call them #19 and #20 but #17 and #18 as well and never ever again adresses them as anything else than #17 and #18.
That's why it's a retcon, because it's an internal incoherence from the manga and not because in the anime they changed it (in that case, for the better).


Regards!

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6202
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Grimlock » Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:22 am

MechaTrunks wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:45 am
you can't say that the path the manga took is ilogical because it can be justified fairly well with the previously stablished canon of the series.
I wouldn't say "fairly well", it's still a bit far-fetched. My viewpoint definitely changed, though. I can see both Kuririn and Gohan knowing the technique alright. Anyway, I can't change my original post anymore, so it's gonna be there.

Hey, at least I still have the other points. Unless you or someone else try to debunk them too. Though the other ones I particularly find it harder to do so (without assumptions/"headcanon", of course).

Witty User Name
Banned
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Witty User Name » Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:58 pm

MechaTrunks wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:45 am
Grimlock wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:45 pm
MechaTrunks wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:54 am
The tayoken is an easy technique that both Goku and Krilin learned on their own.
Alright, I went to check the full history of this and you're all halfway correct.

Tenshinhan uses Taiyo-ken twice before anyone else could imitate it. The first time he blinded everyone (it's already a bit of a stretch to think someone can learn a technique while blinded, let alone when you're running for your life from a pink behemoth while protecting a kid but anyway). The second time he uses it was against Goku, but the latter was wearing sunglasses, blinding everyone else. Goku literally saw the technique so that he could learn/practice it, it was not "on his own".

Kuririn first uses Taiyo-ken against Dodoria, despite being blinded or not being present all the times the technique was used previously. But if Kuririn can use it despite all odds against him, then probably Gohan somehow learned it when Kuririn used it even though he was busy saving his and Dende's lives. But the fact we don't even get to see Gohan using the technique does make it hard to believe that's the case.
Well, the fact that the technique blinds you as a result doesn't mean that one can't see the preparation of the technique (how to position he hands, how to concentrate the ki on them before the big flashing light comes out, etc.).
In the end what matters is that canonically (Krilin explains it when Cell uses the tayoken to hide) it's one of the easiest techniques one can learn in the series, one that Gohan knew it's existence of and one that made a lot of sense he would learn in the context of constantly hidding from the two androids.
I mean, I find completely logical that you would have taken a different path regarding Trunks than the one the manga took, but you can't say that the path the manga took is ilogical because it can be justified fairly well with the previously stablished canon of the series.
Witty User Name wrote:Since I am a stubborn motherfuc*ker, I will say one more thing. IF IT ISN'T A PLOTHOLE, WHY THE ANIME CHANGED IT? Check out episode 122 and see if Trunks even mentions the numbers of the Androids. He doesn't. Toei's writers must have realized this was A STORY MISTAKE and changed it. The manga, however, states 19 and 20 especifically and says they killed Dr. Gero (which creates even more a plothole, I think).

If not, and I am wrong, why would the anime omit such a key piece of information?
I think you're right but for the wrong reasons. The anime chaning something from the manga and making it worse it's the usual norm, so it being different on the manga than on the anime doesn't mean it's an error from the manga.
But on the other hand, Trunks speaks of #19 and #20 and then when he sees #17 and #18 (the ones he clearly says are the androids from his future) he doesn't call them #19 and #20 but #17 and #18 as well and never ever again adresses them as anything else than #17 and #18.
That's why it's a retcon, because it's an internal incoherence from the manga and not because in the anime they changed it (in that case, for the better).


Regards!
But an ''internal incoherence [in the story]'' could not be semantically equated to ''plot hole'' or even ''inconsistency''? Aren't they, in practice, the same thing?

MechaTrunks
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:26 am

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by MechaTrunks » Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:37 am

Witty User Name wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:58 pm
But an ''internal incoherence [in the story]'' could not be semantically equated to ''plot hole'' or even ''inconsistency''? Aren't they, in practice, the same thing?
Yes, it's a plot hole, I just used the "internal icoherence" formula to emphathize that it's a plothole because the manga contradicts itself, not because the anime changed it (even if in that case, the anime changed it for good reasons).

Regards!

Witty User Name
Banned
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Witty User Name » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:34 am

MechaTrunks wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:37 am
Witty User Name wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:58 pm
But an ''internal incoherence [in the story]'' could not be semantically equated to ''plot hole'' or even ''inconsistency''? Aren't they, in practice, the same thing?
Yes, it's a plot hole, I just used the "internal icoherence" formula to emphathize that it's a plothole because the manga contradicts itself, not because the anime changed it (even if in that case, the anime changed it for good reasons).

Regards!
Glad we could reach an agreement between ourselves, at least. I hope the others can see the issue the same way we do, as well.

SSJgogeto
Regular
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by SSJgogeto » Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:34 pm

Dragon Wukong wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:55 pm
SSJgogeto wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:14 pm
Dragon Wukong wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:31 am
the "one day passes in the present, one passes in the future" deal, which I don't think actually contradicts anything in canonical material?
Well, yes and no. If you don't consider the retcon in the manga and use the data from Daizenshuu then yes, it contradicts some things. But if you only take the manga in consideration then it probably doesn't contradict anything.
I don't consider contradicting the Daizenshuu a retcon necessarily. Daizenshuu includes non-canon material anyhow. Only if stuff in the manga itself is contradicted would I consider it a retcon.
I agree with this. But some people probably don't, so IMO it's important to specify everything.

User avatar
Koitsukai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:02 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Koitsukai » Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:26 am

-Piccolo and Buu go inside the ROSAT while Goten and Trunks were already there, that's four people at the same time. Wasn't it said in the Cell saga that only two at a time where allowed in there?

User avatar
Vegeta_Sama
Regular
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:59 pm
Location: Capsule Corporation

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Vegeta_Sama » Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:30 am

Koitsukai wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:26 am
-Piccolo and Buu go inside the ROSAT while Goten and Trunks were already there, that's four people at the same time. Wasn't it said in the Cell saga that only two at a time where allowed in there?
I've seen a lot of people assume that it was just a food and quarters limitation, since there cant possibly a year's worth of food for 4 people. That's how they rationalize it at least
My interpretation of the Dragon Ball Canon

User avatar
Matches Malone
I'm pretty cozy, here...
Posts: 1619
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:12 am

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Matches Malone » Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:41 am

Koitsukai wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:26 am
-Piccolo and Buu go inside the ROSAT while Goten and Trunks were already there, that's four people at the same time. Wasn't it said in the Cell saga that only two at a time where allowed in there?
I think Mr Popo said in Kai that there was enough food for 2 people for a year. I don't think he said only 2 people could enter it. Speaking of retcons, I really hate how Super removed every limitation from the room. I'll never understand the need for Modern DB to just retcon everything established in the original manga.

User avatar
Koitsukai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:02 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Koitsukai » Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:39 pm

Oh I see, that's fair.

Witty User Name
Banned
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: Manga 'retcons'(?)

Post by Witty User Name » Sun Apr 05, 2020 6:09 am

Koitsukai wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:26 am
-Piccolo and Buu go inside the ROSAT while Goten and Trunks were already there, that's four people at the same time. Wasn't it said in the Cell saga that only two at a time where allowed in there?
Yes, that's almost universally know as the most glaring plot hole of the entire original manga. :)

Post Reply