Should non canon characters become canon?

[SupremeKai25]

Old Broly was popular only because of his big power level and the fact that he was presented as the strongest Saiyan ever. There is absolutely nothing else to his character aside from this, he was all style and no substance.

If he wasn't introduced as an unstoppable machine that stomped everyone, pretty much no one would care about him. Since there was nothing else going on for him.

It's hilarious that his female counterpart Kale turns into a hulking brute who screams Son Goku non-stop, it pretty much sums up who Old Broly is

[ABED]

It wasn't just his battle power. Creating a character with a high power level is easy. He left and impression because he has a great memorable design. Just about every movie villain is an unstoppable killing machine until the last few minutes.

[WittyUsername]

I think the fact that the old Broly is an evil Super Saiyan with a fairly fleshed out backstory (for a DBZ movie) was a contributing factor to his popularity, although his status as a super strong guy with big muscles probably didn’t hurt.

[MyVisionity]

Just about every movie villain is an unstoppable killing machine until the last few minutes.

Brolli is the only one who was truly an unstoppable killing machine. The characters had never been overpowered or pushed to the limits the way they were with Brolli. It's his insane battle power, combined with him being an evil Legendary Super Saiyan that ensured his popularity. His design is merely a reflection of those things.

[ABED]

Just about every movie villain is an unstoppable killing machine until the last few minutes.

Brolli is the only one who was truly an unstoppable killing machine. The characters had never been overpowered or pushed to the limits the way they were with Brolli. It's his insane battle power, combined with him being an evil Legendary Super Saiyan that ensured his popularity. His design is merely a reflection of those things.

Except when they stop him. They're pretty much always overpowered

[SupremeKai25]

It wasn't just his battle power. Creating a character with a high power level is easy. He left and impression because he has a great memorable design. Just about every movie villain is an unstoppable killing machine until the last few minutes.

I mean, I was about to say that, and this doesn't help your point at all. Pretty much every movie villain who became popular did so only thanks to the design and battle power (=impression, if Broly didn't have a huge battle power that allowed him to stomp everyone, he wouldn't have made such a big impression), so Old Broly is unique or special because...?

Whereas the villains made by Toriyama always have something more going for them, whether it be personality, backstory, or motivations, that truly makes them unique and stand out.

"Design" and "Huge power level/Impression" don't make Broly unique because Janemba and Cooler also have these traits. Janemba literally doesn't have a personality, he's popular only because he looks cool and forced the Saiyans to fuse.

I think the fact that the old Broly is an evil Super Saiyan with a fairly fleshed out backstory (for a DBZ movie) was a contributing factor to his popularity, although his status as a super strong guy with big muscles probably didn’t hurt.

Lol at Broly's backstory being fleshed-out, imagine having PTSD about Goku just because he was crying a lot. As a baby. Toei should have just left that shitty part out, it would have saved Broly some dignity

DBZA nailed it on how Broly, at his core, despite all his power level and "omg Legendary Super Saiyan!!!" presence, is a literal manchild.

[Magnificent Ponta]

I always thought a slightly tweaked Hearts could be pretty neat.

Like a lot of non-main continuity characters, he's fundamentally a bit grandiose compared with Toriyama-written characters, but if you strip out the Godslayer 'I want to destroy Zeno so Mortals can be free' element of him, you're left with someone who fundamentally believes that people should be free to do whatever they want (and therefore could extend that principle logically into 'when there's a clash between desires, people should naturally fight it out, and whoever wants it more will win out'), with a neat ability in 'reading people's hearts' so he knows what they want and what they intend to do (so, both in keeping with his beliefs and having an obvious application to combat), and a pretty unique visual style - I could see him being a nice combat foil for an Uub being trained in Ultra Instinct, in the event of a kind of 'Next Gen Dragon Ball' kind of story.

But therein lies the crux of the topic - I guess the real question that needs asking is, 'what sort of scenarios/stories should the main continuity want to include as good Dragon Ball stories, which a currently existing character (however reimagined) might serve well?' Even the above example is very abstract; unless there's a good story to tell where he'd be a neat addition, he may as well stay where he is. Of course a reimagined character could be neat, but coming at the question from a perspective of 'what kind of characters would be neat to have in the main continuity?' is kind of putting the cart before the horse.

[ABED]

Because he has a great design. Battle powers are easy. Just write that someone's strong. Designing a character that audiences take to and remember is the hard part. Broly doesn't have to have much going on. He's not being asked to carry more than a movie at a time.

Janemba is pretty bland and Coola is a mod of Freeza. Regardless if I agreed about Janemba and Coola, it's possible that, GASP, at least one other character has a unique design.

DBZA nailed it on how Broly, at his core, despite all his power level and "omg Legendary Super Saiyan!!!" presence, is a literal manchild.

There you go. That's different.

[SupremeKai25]

the Godslayer 'I want to destroy Zeno so Mortals can be free' element of him

That's the only thing about him that makes him a worthwhile addition to Canon.

If Toriyama doesn't want such a kind of villain he shouldn't introduce a being like Zeno who literally erase trillions if he's bored one day. It only makes sense that some mortals wouldn't take kindly to be ruled by such a Deity.

Having a villain like Hearts is just a natural consequence of introducing a God like Zeno.

[Magnificent Ponta]

If Toriyama doesn't want such a kind of villain he shouldn't introduce a being like Zeno who literally erase trillions if he's bored one day. It only makes sense that some mortals wouldn't take kindly to be ruled by such a Deity.

Having a villain like Hearts is just a natural consequence of introducing a God like Zeno.

Sure it makes sense; I just find it to be the least interesting aspect of the character which, furthermore, would have the side-effect of predetermining the terms of whatever story he might be involved in if he were included.

[ABED]

If Toriyama doesn't want such a kind of villain he shouldn't introduce a being like Zeno who literally erase trillions if he's bored one day. It only makes sense that some mortals wouldn't take kindly to be ruled by such a Deity.

Having a villain like Hearts is just a natural consequence of introducing a God like Zeno.

Sure it makes sense; I just find it to be the least interesting aspect of the character which, furthermore, would have the side-effect of predetermining the terms of whatever story he might be involved in if he were included.

If I understand what you mean, I don't see how that's a negative. He has a definable character with a specific motivation.

At most, maybe they should use some non-canon character as inspiration, but not just flat out bring them into the story proper.

[Magnificent Ponta]

If Toriyama doesn't want such a kind of villain he shouldn't introduce a being like Zeno who literally erase trillions if he's bored one day. It only makes sense that some mortals wouldn't take kindly to be ruled by such a Deity.

Having a villain like Hearts is just a natural consequence of introducing a God like Zeno.

Sure it makes sense; I just find it to be the least interesting aspect of the character which, furthermore, would have the side-effect of predetermining the terms of whatever story he might be involved in if he were included.

If I understand what you mean, I don't see how that's a negative. He has a definable character with a specific motivation.

The negative is simply in my opinion that the specific motivation in question isn't very interesting, and if it's retained then Hearts, despite having other attractive characteristics (and what in my opinion is a more interesting and usable basic motivation) that could be used in a different sort of scenario, actually couldn't really be in a story that's fundamentally about anything else. Nothing more than that, really.

[ABED]

Sure it makes sense; I just find it to be the least interesting aspect of the character which, furthermore, would have the side-effect of predetermining the terms of whatever story he might be involved in if he were included.

If I understand what you mean, I don't see how that's a negative. He has a definable character with a specific motivation.

The negative is simply in my opinion that the specific motivation in question isn't very interesting, and if it's retained then Hearts, despite having other attractive characteristics (and what in my opinion is a more interesting and usable basic motivation) that could be used in a different sort of scenario, actually couldn't really be in a story that's fundamentally about anything else. Nothing more than that, really.

You lost me. Who's Hearts? And you're speaking in such general terms, I have a hard time following.

[Magnificent Ponta]

You lost me. Who's Hearts? And you're speaking in such general terms, I have a hard time following.

Hearts is a villainous character from Super Dragon Ball Heroes (and therefore, by the terms of the OP, an example of a 'non-canon' character who could become 'canon'). He is also the only person I've been discussing, so far, in this topic, so I'm a little confused by your reply. Perhaps reviewing my original post on him might help you see what I'm getting at, here?:

I always thought a slightly tweaked Hearts could be pretty neat.

Like a lot of non-main continuity characters, he's fundamentally a bit grandiose compared with Toriyama-written characters, but if you strip out the Godslayer 'I want to destroy Zeno so Mortals can be free' element of him, you're left with someone who fundamentally believes that people should be free to do whatever they want (and therefore could extend that principle logically into 'when there's a clash between desires, people should naturally fight it out, and whoever wants it more will win out'), with a neat ability in 'reading people's hearts' so he knows what they want and what they intend to do (so, both in keeping with his beliefs and having an obvious application to combat), and a pretty unique visual style - I could see him being a nice combat foil for an Uub being trained in Ultra Instinct, in the event of a kind of 'Next Gen Dragon Ball' kind of story.

But therein lies the crux of the topic - I guess the real question that needs asking is, 'what sort of scenarios/stories should the main continuity want to include as good Dragon Ball stories, which a currently existing character (however reimagined) might serve well?' Even the above example is very abstract; unless there's a good story to tell where he'd be a neat addition, he may as well stay where he is. Of course a reimagined character could be neat, but coming at the question from a perspective of 'what kind of characters would be neat to have in the main continuity?' is kind of putting the cart before the horse.

In brief, I'm saying that this character has a bunch of interesting aspects in terms of visual appeal, basic gimmick, and usability of the basic motivation that 'people should be free to do what they want' generally, all of which could be used quite profitably in the right story if he were to be written in to main continuity; however, the specific 'God-destroying = freedom' motivation he evinces in Super Dragon Ball Heroes really doesn't interest me at all, I don't think its grandiosity is very in keeping with the way Toriyama generally tends to treat characters (as he tends to write characters in a way that accentuates and sometimes lampoons their pettiness, which I find to be part of the charm of his writing and which Heart's basic motivation can still speak to pretty well, but his specific motivation cannot), and it would basically dictate the terms of a main-continuity story using this character, which I personally think would be a waste of potential. Hence, I think that it would be better to strip that aspect out (SupremeKai25's disagreement notwithstanding).

Does this make things a bit clearer?

[WittyUsername]

Lol at Broly's backstory being fleshed-out, imagine having PTSD about Goku just because he was crying a lot. As a baby. Toei should have just left that shitty part out, it would have saved Broly some dignity

DBZA nailed it on how Broly, at his core, despite all his power level and "omg Legendary Super Saiyan!!!" presence, is a literal manchild.

DBZA is not the end all be all. Broly does have a fleshed out backstory compared to most of the other movie villains, and the film never claims that he hates Goku for crying a lot.

[SupremeKai25]

Lol at Broly's backstory being fleshed-out, imagine having PTSD about Goku just because he was crying a lot. As a baby. Toei should have just left that shitty part out, it would have saved Broly some dignity

DBZA nailed it on how Broly, at his core, despite all his power level and "omg Legendary Super Saiyan!!!" presence, is a literal manchild.

DBZA is not the end all be all. Broly does have a fleshed out backstory compared to most of the other movie villains, and the film never claims that he hates Goku for crying a lot.

Compared to the other movie villains, even Jiren has a fleshed-out backstory, it means nothing.

Tell me why Broly hates Goku then, I imagine you'll have much to tell me on the subject, since his backstory was fleshed-out.

[JulieYBM]

I mean...do we really need to harp on mental illness as if it's a joke? Can we not find some other avenue other than laughing at trauma?

[WittyUsername]

Lol at Broly's backstory being fleshed-out, imagine having PTSD about Goku just because he was crying a lot. As a baby. Toei should have just left that shitty part out, it would have saved Broly some dignity

DBZA nailed it on how Broly, at his core, despite all his power level and "omg Legendary Super Saiyan!!!" presence, is a literal manchild.

DBZA is not the end all be all. Broly does have a fleshed out backstory compared to most of the other movie villains, and the film never claims that he hates Goku for crying a lot.

Compared to the other movie villains, even Jiren has a fleshed-out backstory, it means nothing.

Tell me why Broly hates Goku then, I imagine you'll have much to tell me on the subject, since his backstory was fleshed-out.

The movie makes a point about how Goku and Broly’s fates are intertwined, due to them having been born on the same day. Paragus suggests that Broly’s hatred towards Goku is because Goku awakened his “fighting instincts” as a Saiyan. You can also make the potential argument that Broly associates Goku with his traumatic experience of having been stabbed and left for dead as an infant.

[ZeroIsOurHero]

I mean...do we really need to harp on mental illness as if it's a joke? Can we not find some other avenue other than laughing at trauma?

I mean, when that "mental illness" involves someone being turned into an unstoppable killing machine because a baby next to him cried a little too much when he was born, then it's actually pretty funny. We make fun of Broly's backstory because it's ridiculous and implausible, not because it involves "trauma."

[PurestEvil]

The movie makes a point about how Goku and Broly’s fates are intertwined, due to them having been born on the same day. Paragus suggests that Broly’s hatred towards Goku is because Goku awakened his “fighting instincts” as a Saiyan. You can also make the potential argument that Broly associates Goku with his traumatic experience of having been stabbed and left for dead as an infant.

Too bad the movie failed to convey that characterization effectively