Did the editor veto of 17 and 18 being the arc villains keep her alive

[Cure Dragon 255]

This is the one thread for the month. I know an editor REALLY hated the idea of "Brats" being the main villains (I was about to say Torishima but not sure) but I wonder if this veto was what spared 18 from death. If she was kept up a main villain instead of Cell taking over, would the good guys kill her? I know Toriyama's softness for female characters would have made her be defeated in a softer way, but would she have become good? Would she be spared from death, even if a softer one?

EDIT: Removed the accusations of sexism. They were REALLY uncalled for.

[Jord]

Wow, great way to derail your own thread by jumping to conclusions with you pointing to supposed sexism by a recently departed author. Classy.

[SupremeKai25]

Actually, pretty much every Toriyama-original main villain besides Cell and Zamasu survived their own arc in some way.

Dragon Ball has more redeemed/surviving main villains than even Naruto Shippuden.

If their backstory was left unchanged, then 17 and 18 would still survive despite being the main villains. Their tragic backstory of having been abused and experimented on by Gero would ultimately disqualify them from permanent death, the same as Vegeta and his own tragic backstory.

If anything, it would make 17's power-jumps in Super more logical. If this guy took Cell's role as the "Big Bad" of a third of DBZ, then it makes sense for him to have so much potential. As it stands now, I can't really blame Super as much as DBZ and its poor planning (Toriyama not knowing who should be the villain of the Android saga and just making it up as he went).

[Cure Dragon 255]

Wow, great way to derail your own thread by jumping to conclusions with you pointing to supposed sexism by a recently departed author. Classy.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I love Toriyama and I didnt intend like... say HE'S AN EVIL SEXIST OPPRESOR. But believe it or not, I APPRECIATE your criticism and I will now apologize for this. I really didnt intend this.

[Dbzfan94]

Considering Future 18 is still killed by Trunks with no hesitation, I’d say no.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Considering Future 18 is still killed by Trunks with no hesitation, I’d say no.

Please forgive me I am a bit dumb, but this "no" part what does it mean? It's not clear to me. The titular question of the therad is if the editor veto kept her alive but saying no, doesnt make sense for this setence, You meant "No, he still killed her in the future, he would not have mercy on her" or "No, the veto didnt keep her alive" which doesnt make sense.

[MasenkoHA]

I think it depends on when Toriyama decided 18 would be the Future Mrs.Krillin. After he decided 17 and 18 wouldn't be the big bad anymore? Before?

Pilaf (if he counts), Piccolo (through reincarnation), and Vegeta all survived their stint as big bad so there's a precedent.

We could of had a parallel to the Saiyan arc where Krillin ask Goku to spare 18 or something

[Cure Dragon 255]

I think it depends on when Toriyama decided 18 would be the Future Mrs.Krillin. After he decided 17 and 18 wouldn't be the big bad anymore? Before?

Pilaf (if he counts), Piccolo (through reincarnation), and Vegeta all survived their stint as big bad so there's a precedent.

We could of had a parallel to the Saiyan arc where Krillin ask Goku to spare 18 or something

You went from constantly snarking about my silly threads to posting the best posts in my opinion. This would have been SUCH AN AWESOME scene, and it would have been an awesome call back.

[UpFromTheSkies]

If I remember correctly, Toriyama's editor at the time didn't veto anything, it was one of his past editors that didn't like them as the main villians and poked fun at them, which inspired Toriyama to change things up and create Cell.

[Cure Dragon 255]

If I remember correctly, Toriyama's editor at the time didn't veto anything, it was one of his past editors that didn't like them as the main villians and poked fun at them, which inspired Toriyama to change things up and create Cell.

Believe it or not, I knew that already, but not only I was not sure of it, its also way longer and troublesome to write in a thread title.

[BootyCheeksJohnson]

It's possible, but Dragon Ball has a history of at least half of the bad guys becoming good guys. So there was a high likelihood of it happening anyway. Sure some are brutally iced like General Red, Tao Pai Pai, Demon Piccolo (although he got reincarnated), Raditz, Nappa, Cell, etc, but probably around the same number had their minds changed. Heck Boo split into two people so we got both the reformed bad guy and the bad guy who gets killed off in the same arc.

[Dbzfan94]

Considering Future 18 is still killed by Trunks with no hesitation, I’d say no.

Please forgive me I am a bit dumb, but this "no" part what does it mean? It's not clear to me. The titular question of the therad is if the editor veto kept her alive but saying no, doesnt make sense for this setence, You meant "No, he still killed her in the future, he would not have mercy on her" or "No, the veto didnt keep her alive" which doesnt make sense.

I'm not sure what you don’t understand. Future 18 is still killed, so no, it’s safe to assume that present 18 still likely would have died if the “editor veto” didn’t exist

[MasenkoHA]

Considering Future 18 is still killed by Trunks with no hesitation, I’d say no.

Please forgive me I am a bit dumb, but this "no" part what does it mean? It's not clear to me. The titular question of the therad is if the editor veto kept her alive but saying no, doesnt make sense for this setence, You meant "No, he still killed her in the future, he would not have mercy on her" or "No, the veto didnt keep her alive" which doesnt make sense.

I'm not sure what you don’t understand. Future 18 is still killed, so no, it’s safe to assume that present 18 still likely would have died if the “editor veto” didn’t exist

But why would it be safe to assume present 18 would be killed just because Future 18 was? I'm not seeing the connection either.

Even without 17 and 18 getting demoted and Cell being the new big bad we still, theoretically, could have gotten a scenario where present 18 is spared and reforms and future 18 is killed.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Considering Future 18 is still killed by Trunks with no hesitation, I’d say no.

Please forgive me I am a bit dumb, but this "no" part what does it mean? It's not clear to me. The titular question of the therad is if the editor veto kept her alive but saying no, doesnt make sense for this setence, You meant "No, he still killed her in the future, he would not have mercy on her" or "No, the veto didnt keep her alive" which doesnt make sense.

I'm not sure what you don’t understand. Future 18 is still killed, so no, it’s safe to assume that present 18 still likely would have died if the “editor veto” didn’t exist

Thanks I got it now!