How do you explain plot holes within Dragon Ball?

[Nex Carnifex]

I watch/read Dragon Ball as a serious action drama so I like the story to flow and make sense, so stuff like canon and inconsistencies are important to me. I want to be able to see the entire story as free from such major flaws like plot holes, so silly things like moon related plot points I need to develop explanations for. For example, Goku was able to extend all the way to the moon without dying so its not hard to imagine this moon was a lot closer to Earth than our moon, and thus its size would have been smaller as well (as seen in the panel) thus its not hard to imagine a mountain buster like Roshi would be able to destroy it. The moon appears later, so its only logical to say Kami created a new one, this one could have been bigger or the same size, it doesn't matter though it certainly looks bigger.

My question is how do you explain these inconsistencies/plot holes? Things like Cell's inconsistent regeneration rules. Did he transfer his consciousness into his legs in the time before Goku blew his upper half off allowing him to regenerate a new nucleus? That is how I would explain it, what about you?

[Rostir]

My view is that you can explain plotholes all you want to but in the end none of it has any feasibility unless you are Akira Toriyama.

[Nex Carnifex]

My view is that you can explain plotholes all you want to but in the end none of it has any feasibility unless you are Akira Toriyama.

Well I like to look at it this way
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes

[Piccolo Daimao]

A plothole is a plothole. You can't explain something like that away. If you want to take that line of thinking, then literally anything in the world that doesn't make sense you can twist into making sense, no matter how retarded it may be. So is it still a plothole in your eyes, even if your explanation isn't plausible?

Look, I just wouldn't bother. Nothing is perfect, and almost every work of fiction has its flaws.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

I try to explain them in every possible way (like with the Cell surviving Goku's Kamehameha), but if it's not possible, I just correct it in my mind (like the Dragon Balls reactivating after 8 months instead of 12).

[Nex Carnifex]

A plothole is a plothole. You can't explain something like that away. If you want to take that line of thinking, then literally anything in the world that doesn't make sense you can twist into making sense, no matter how retarded it may be. So is it still a plothole in your eyes, even if your explanation isn't plausible?

Look, I just wouldn't bother. Nothing is perfect, and almost every work of fiction has its flaws.

You can its easy you just take what you know as true and put it together to form an explanation just like a crime case. Take the grandfather paradox as an example, an easy way to explain it would be the idea of multiple timelines, this is exactly how it works in Dragon Ball btw.

[caejones]

I think someone needs to do a Methods of Rationality version of Dragonball, where Grandpa Gohan was... umm... a briliant scientist? ...
Doubt I could convince Eliezer Yukowsky to do it, though.

[Piccolo Daimao]

A plothole is a plothole. You can't explain something like that away. If you want to take that line of thinking, then literally anything in the world that doesn't make sense you can twist into making sense, no matter how retarded it may be. So is it still a plothole in your eyes, even if your explanation isn't plausible?

Look, I just wouldn't bother. Nothing is perfect, and almost every work of fiction has its flaws.

You can its easy you just take what you know as true and put it together to form an explanation just like a crime case. Take the grandfather paradox as an example, an easy way to explain it would be the idea of multiple timelines, this is exactly how it works in Dragon Ball btw.

Take Back to the Future, for example. That clearly doesn't go by multiple timelines (at least, the first one); the plot is pretty much based around the grandfather paradox, and when it looks like Marty's parents aren't going to get together, Marty literally begins to phase out of existence.

[Nex Carnifex]

A plothole is a plothole. You can't explain something like that away. If you want to take that line of thinking, then literally anything in the world that doesn't make sense you can twist into making sense, no matter how retarded it may be. So is it still a plothole in your eyes, even if your explanation isn't plausible?

Look, I just wouldn't bother. Nothing is perfect, and almost every work of fiction has its flaws.

You can its easy you just take what you know as true and put it together to form an explanation just like a crime case. Take the grandfather paradox as an example, an easy way to explain it would be the idea of multiple timelines, this is exactly how it works in Dragon Ball btw.

Take Back to the Future, for example. That clearly doesn't go by multiple timelines (at least, the first one); the plot is pretty much based around the grandfather paradox, and when it looks like Marty's parents aren't going to get together, Marty literally begins to phase out of existence.

Well that show is purposefully being illogical, the grandfather paradox would entail an infinite loop logically it wouldn't work that way but hey there aren't any rules in fiction. This thread is based on speculation of course, but your point that it is impossible to explain away a plot hole is just plainly false, I've already explained why.

[Nex Carnifex]

I try to explain them in every possible way (like with the Cell surviving Goku's Kamehameha), but if it's not possible, I just correct it in my mind (like the Dragon Balls reactivating after 8 months instead of 12).

Exactly, suppose you are making a wiki to explain the workings of the Dragon Ball universe, eventually you are going to run into logical conclusions like this, things that just have to be true for it to make sense, therefore, they are true.

[Saiga]

I think it's foolish to dismiss something as a plot hole without even trying to think of an explanation behind it, because then I see people call things plot holes when they aren't even close. That said, there are plot holes that don't have any reasonable explanation and I just don't let those bother me.

[OzzyApu]

When it comes to the movies, I don't even consider them the same universe (not "in-universe", either, but as if they're just "what-if" scenarios). The Bardock and Trunks TV specials though I do consider canon, and whatever occurs in those specials that may create plot holes I mostly put as overriding canon to what happens in the primary show.

When it comes to filler plot holes, they're disregarded. When it comes to manga plot holes, I don't even bother with explaining them for myself. I have the big out for those = Toriyama just screwed up!

[Nex Carnifex]

I think all the moon related plot holes/inconsistencies as well as the Cell's regenerating plot hole can easily be explained as I did in the OP. Is there any other plot holes in the manga (which I consider canon) that need addressing?

[Bussani]

Well that show is purposefully being illogical

Wait, you can't accept anything being a plot hole in Dragon Ball, but something you don't understand happens in another franchise and you say it's being illogical on purpose? Weird standards, especially when I don't think Dragon Ball is as much a "serious drama" as I think you do.

That said, I do try to explain plot holes if I can. I mean, why not? It's fun to find explanations that work. But my enjoyment of the story doesn't hinge on it, so it's not a huge deal to me.

[Nex Carnifex]

Well that show is purposefully being illogical

Wait, you can't accept anything being a plot hole in Dragon Ball, but something you don't understand happens in another franchise and you say it's being illogical on purpose? Weird standards, especially when I don't think Dragon Ball is as much a "serious drama" as I think you do.

That said, I do try to explain plot holes if I can. I mean, why not? It's fun to find explanations that work. But my enjoyment of the story doesn't hinge on it, so it's not a huge deal to me.

Well they are playing off a paradox, thus being purposely illogical, duh.

[Bussani]

What do you mean, though? Back to the Future has its own way of portraying how these things work, and apart from how fast the changes propagate through the timeline at one time or another, it's portrayed rather consistently. You can't really say, "Logically, it wouldn't work that way."

Besides, I think the point is that if you're okay with dismissing Back to the Future as being "purposefully illogical," I'm not sure why we can't do the same with Goku taking a rabbit to the moon, which itself is nothing but a joke based on a piece of Japanese folklore.

[Nex Carnifex]

Its true Dragon Ball at first didn't really have an internal logic to it and was more of a gag comic but later it got more serious and developed an internal logic, though still that event still occurred in the timeline so coming up with a logical explanation based on the universe's internal logic is what I tried to do, its nice being able to envision the story mentally that's part of what fiction is about isn't it? You can't do that when parts don't fit. It doesn't make sense in BTTF though because if he killed his grandfather, then he would never be born, thus he would never have went back in time to kill his grandfather, thus he would have been born, thus he would have went back in time, etc. it logically makes no sense, however by adding the alternate timeline theory it all of a sudden CAN make sense.

[Bussani]

It doesn't make sense in BTTF though because if he killed his grandfather, then he would never be born, thus he would never have went back in time to kill his grandfather, thus he would have been born, thus he would have went back in time, etc. it logically makes no sense

And yet, they didn't fall victim to a paradox in the story due to the way time travel in Back to the Future works. It has its own way of handling paradoxes.

[Nex Carnifex]

It doesn't make sense in BTTF though because if he killed his grandfather, then he would never be born, thus he would never have went back in time to kill his grandfather, thus he would have been born, thus he would have went back in time, etc. it logically makes no sense

And yet, they didn't fall victim to a paradox in the story due to the way time travel in Back to the Future works. It has its own way of handling paradoxes.

I think it was more likely a misinterpretation of how the logic works, they are basically saying, oh since you killed your grandfather you can't exist, but it wouldn't end there. However, you could say there was some universal random law within the movie dictating that this is what happens when you do this, which is ultimately what you'd have to assume, thus bringing us back to the point of this thread.

[Bussani]

I think it was more likely a misinterpretation of how the logic works, they are basically saying, oh since you killed your grandfather you can't exist, but it wouldn't end there. However, you could say there was some universal random law within the movie dictating that this is what happens when you do this, which is ultimately what you'd have to assume, thus bringing us back to the point of this thread.

I wouldn't call it a misunderstanding. They made it work how they wanted it to work. Time travel isn't real, after all, so you can make up your own rules if you want to. And yeah, that is the point of the thread--that's what I mean when I say it doesn't seem so illogical to me. I think it's a mistake to say, "Time travel should work like this," since that's only one idea of how time travel would work.