Who is the Anchor Being?

[Grimlock]

Who would say is the "anchor being" for a timeline's existence? As per Dragon Ball GT TV Special and Dragon Ball Online, in both of those continuities, they still exist even centuries after Goku, so it doesn't necessarily need to be him. Although I guess you could argue that time hasn't passed enough in both situations.

In fact, I'll expand the concept introduced in the Deadpool and Wolverine movie and ask: if you don't think it's a being, what could be the anchor for the timeline's existence? Goku's bloodline? As long as there's a Goku's descendant, the timeline is safe? Vegeta's? Kuririn's?

The cool thing is that a seemingly irrelevant character could be the anchor being, so there's more than meets the eye (hah!) in regards to that character!

[JulieYBM]

It's probably Shin, the dumbest guy in the universe. That would be the most funny answer, at least.

[Trouser]

It's probably Tori-Bot and now that Toriyama is gone the universe (franchise) is not going to survive (in a "canon" way) and its going to end (because of no new stuff from the creator).

[Rafa Fast]

I would say Freeza, as the adventures of Goku and everything that came after the Pilaf arc only happened because he decided to destroy Planet Vegeta, forcing Bardock to send Kakarotto to Earth, but from what I could understand, apparently the anchor being can't die or else the universe starts to collapse? (I haven't watched Deadpool 3 so I don't really know how the concept works)

Well, there were many years of peace without Freeza being alive or around, so my bet is Beerus, he's not only the one who ordered Freeza to destroy Planet Vegeta (though Freeza had his personal reasons), allowing to Goku's journey to happen, but also...well, look at what literally happened to the timeline where he was "killed". That would probably make Kaioshin the anchor too at the same time, just like Julie said

For objects, probably the Dragon Balls, again, Goku's journey only happens because Bulma found him when she was searching for them, without them, Piccolo Daimao, or Raditz or Boo would've probably just destroyed everything.

That would also make the Namekuseijins the most important beings in the universes, as they're the ones who created the Dragon Balls, and of course, there's Zarama.

(Though, something tells me that Boo could also be a strong candidate for anchor, given how he always existed since time imemorial, and after he died, he reincarnated into a new being, and his other part continued existing)

[Grimlock]

It's probably Shin, the dumbest guy in the universe. That would be the most funny answer, at least.

He didn't even cross my mind when I was writing the post, otherwise I think would pick him as well. I agree he's the funniest answer indeed. Something about him makes me think he could be a Toriyama's candidate too.

I would say Freeza, as the adventures of Goku and everything that came after the Pilaf arc only happened because he decided to destroy Planet Vegeta, forcing Bardock to send Kakarotto to Earth, but from what I could understand, apparently the anchor being can't die or else the universe starts to collapse? (I haven't watched Deadpool 3 so I don't really know how the concept works)

Well, there were many years of peace without Freeza being alive or around, so my bet is Beerus, he's not only the one who ordered Freeza to destroy Planet Vegeta (though Freeza had his personal reasons), allowing to Goku's journey to happen, but also...well, look at what literally happened to the timeline where he was "killed". That would probably make Kaioshin the anchor too at the same time, just like Julie said

Freeza would be an interesting choice but because he already died, twice... Maybe it could still be him and because he returned, Universe 7 just starts to glitch eventually. Beerus being the anchor for Trunks timeline is a good one, it's just too bad that from Beerus' demise until the erasure of the timeline, not long had passed.

For objects, probably the Dragon Balls, again, Goku's journey only happens because Bulma found him when she was searching for them, without them, Piccolo Daimao, or Raditz or Boo would've probably just destroyed everything.

That would also make the Namekuseijins the most important beings in the universes, as they're the ones who created the Dragon Balls, and of course, there's Zarama.

(Though, something tells me that Boo could also be a strong candidate for anchor, given how he always existed since time imemorial, and after he died, he reincarnated into a new being, and his other part continued existing)

Also there's no Buu in Trunks timeline, and like you said, look what happened there. Maybe Universe 7 does require a Buu. This makes Uub even more special. First human to have god Ki and now he could be the anchor...

[Kaboom]

It's Arale, obviously.

[Zephyr]

The idea of an anchor being is kind of strange, honestly. If they die then the universe/timeline fades from existence? What? Why? How?

That's setting aside the fact that death is a natural part of life; nothing lives forever. But sure, this is fiction, fantasy; immortality can be a thing. Alright. If the anchor being is immortal, then it can start to make sense. But wait, everyone is born some time. Which means that there is a time before the anchor being is around, which doesn't make sense. If the anchor being's presence is what keeps their universe/timeline existing, then the universe/timeline couldn't reasonably pre-exist the anchor being, could it?

So any anchor being would have to be both timeless and immortal. It being Wolverine in the movie is already questionable. But then we try to apply that to Dragon Ball, and alright, who is the anchor being? Who could it be? Goku dies so it can't be him. Freeza dies so it can't be him. Kaioshin die, so it can't be them. There's also an afterlife, which is located within the universe and the timeline, so it's not as if someone dying means they're actually "gone". And then, what part of them is the true "anchor", their soul, or their body? If it's their soul, then that gets reincarnated, so that's never really gone, unless they get killed again while dead I guess.

It's a question that requires thought, regarding a concept that falls apart when you think about it. I'll just say Goku, because we pretty much never get stories without him.

[JulieYBM]

I don't really think that the film thought through the concept beyond "We need a plot to fit the meta-narrative of closing the door on the old FOX films, so let's do that through using Logan!" Like, the Deadpool x Wolverine flirting was the best part of the film for a reason.

Well, that and the cameos being fun (Jackman's abbbbbbbssssssss...........).


God, I can't believe they wasted an Old Boy reference on that film.

[LoganForkHands73]

The whole "anchor being" thing references FOX's marketing strategy for the X-Men movies (which, tbf, I didn't realise until after I saw the film so it slightly went over my head). Wolverine was always treated as their "anchor character", but there were plans for Deadpool and Channing Tatum's Gambit to be potential anchors as well. Only one of those worked out.

All that's to say, the anchor being is always the biggest, most profitable protagonist that the world revolves around. Who else can it be but Son Goku. Dragon Ball is his story, top to bottom. It even fits Paradox's comment that the universe can still naturally survive a few thousand years after the anchor being's death. What's the furthest point in the DB universe that we see? Online? Or A Hero's Legacy? Goku's legacy is still visible in both.

Maybe Vegeta, Piccolo and Freeza are like "grapnel beings", helping to hold it all together around the main anchor, Goku.

[Grimlock]

It's Arale, obviously.

Arale is another one I could totally see Toriyama picking, it fits everything. But she's a robot and doesn't seem to get into fights, so if she's the anchor, the timeline will always be safe, I guess.

The idea of an anchor being is kind of strange, honestly. If they die then the universe/timeline fades from existence? What? Why? How?

That's setting aside the fact that death is a natural part of life; nothing lives forever. But sure, this is fiction, fantasy; immortality can be a thing. Alright. If the anchor being is immortal, then it can start to make sense. But wait, everyone is born some time. Which means that there is a time before the anchor being is around, which doesn't make sense. If the anchor being's presence is what keeps their universe/timeline existing, then the universe/timeline couldn't reasonably pre-exist the anchor being, could it?

I had the same reaction and thought the same thing, but then I remember the ending of season two of the Loki series. After Loki accepted his role of holding the realities, some rules must have changed. You can assume he's the one that came up with this idea. Maybe the timeline dies when the anchor dies so that he doesn't get to hold all realities for a long time, maybe they are heavy. I believe that's the case until Marvel decides to reveal the actual reason.

All that's to say, the anchor being is always the biggest, most profitable protagonist that the world revolves around. Who else can it be but Son Goku. Dragon Ball is his story, top to bottom. It even fits Paradox's comment that the universe can still naturally survive a few thousand years after the anchor being's death. What's the furthest point in the DB universe that we see? Online? Or A Hero's Legacy? Goku's legacy is still visible in both.

It's Dragon Ball Online, AGE 1000. I'd say the game was shaping up to be a Trunks story, I don't think it would pull a Dragon Ball Heroes and make Goku (and the others) Time Patrollers as well.

Maybe Trunks is the anchor being for the present timeline, as Goku continued to get stories because of him too.

[obiwan23s]

I think Dragon Ball does a pretty thorough job of answering this question, and yes it's Son Goku. Look no further than the Future Trunks timeline, which loses its Goku and is then later completely wiped from existence by Zeno in Dragon Ball Super.

[Grimlock]

But I have to look further because, as already mentioned, there are two realities surviving without Goku. Three, the timeline where Cell kills Trunks also doesn't have a Goku and it is fine, as far as we know. Four, if you want to count the timeline where there are two Trunks living in it. But maybe they will vanish at some point... It's just taking longer.

[Kaboom]

Let's not forget that being "dead" doesn't always mean much in the Dragon Ball cosmos, even by the standards of other fictional settings. Goku may be technically dead in the various not-fucked-up-by-Super versions of Trunks' timelines, but all that presumably means is that he's just kicking around in the afterlife somewhere with a halo'd body, still thriving and getting stronger and very much, y'know, existent.

[Majin Buu]

I don't think the folks in charge would be creative enough to make this "anchor being" someone other than Goku. I could see Toriyama himself doing it- If only to subvert expectations for the sake of a joke.

[Yuji]

Not very familiar with the concept but across all timelines and continuities, wouldn't Trunks actually be the most important character in the series?

[miguelnuva1]

Dragonball has several timelines inside of their universe so if the anchor being is Goku there is more than one going around.

Personally I'd say Toribot.

[Grimlock]

Not very familiar with the concept but across all timelines and continuities, wouldn't Trunks actually be the most important character in the series?

The concept allows for anyone to be the anchor being. Sure, in its introduction they said Wolverine was the anchor being for the Fox Universe, but that's just because he's is the most popular character. It can be anyone, really.

You can go for importance, but Trunks wouldn't be alone. I'd put Bardock's name in there, since he decided to send Goku to Earth in the first place. Though Bardock's fate is... Uncertain...? Gohan would probably appear for having dropped Goku too.

[Yuji]

Not very familiar with the concept but across all timelines and continuities, wouldn't Trunks actually be the most important character in the series?

The concept allows for anyone to be the anchor being. Sure, in its introduction they said Wolverine was the anchor being for the Fox Universe, but that's just because he's is the most popular character. It can be anyone, really.

You can go for importance, but Trunks wouldn't be alone. I'd put Bardock's name in there, since he decided to send Goku to Earth in the first place. Though Bardock's fate is... Uncertain...? Gohan would probably appear for having dropped Goku too.

I mean importance in the sense that Trunks seems to be the glue holding all reality together, outside of major deities. He may not be the main hero or the most powerful, but he is a guide to the viewer and seems to be present in all major events as a time patroller. Goku himself is absent from a lot of major events.

[PerhapsTheOtherOne]

As defined by the recent Deadpool & Wolverine film, it'd be the most central character in the "stories" of that timeline.

And that can differ between timelines, even those similar to one another; it's not instant, as it's said to take thousands of years after the anchor being's passing. It's a very meta idea overall.

Son Goku of the main timeline would undoubtedly be the anchor being, as he's the central character to pretty much all corners of the Dragon Ball story. The story has almost always been about Son Goku, and other stories without him have indeed ended.

GT and the original timeline that Future Trunks belongs to are the most prominent examples, as their timelines eventually came to an end after their versions of Son Goku disappeared without coming back.

[miguelnuva1]

Because of the way Dragonball operates, I'd argue the anchor being needs to die twice to start eroding the timeline.

We are warned about this during the Kid Buu saga but a dead person dying again seems to work closer to death in other shows.