What is a "Side Story?" Dragon Ball GT Edition

[Black Hawk]

Funnily enough, the Chozenshuu timeline doesn't list one of the timelines present in the Daizenshuu excerpt that timeline came from.

There is another timeline I've seen floating around that includes a few movies, along with a disclaimer saying that they wouldn't actually fit where they are placed. I don't know what it's from, but I've seen Herms reference it recently.

Yeah, it's that elusive "fourth timeline" that was dropped. My belief is that it was the second timeline actually created, when Trunks went into the past for the very first time. In other words, the timelines in order of creation are...

Timeline 1 - "Cell Timeline"; Trunks was killed by Cell at the end of this timeline because he didn't know he existed.
Timeline 2 - "??? Timeline"; The Trunks who was killed by Cell came to this timeline, and the deviation point from the "main" timeline is that Trunks doesn't come back a third time, because he's died, so the artificial humans are defeated (either in battle after the warriors trained in the Room of Spirit and Time) or by deactivation. Cell likely doesn't show up unless it's at the end of the timeline, at which point, he'd probably be easy pickings for the Super Saiyajin, regardless of what level they reach (that is, if they aren't killed by Bū, provided there's even enough energy to reawaken him).
Timeline 3 - "Trunks Timeline"; Trunks goes back in time to the timeline we all know and love.
Timeline 4 - "Main Timeline"; 'Nuff said.

The best explanation I can give for why the "??? Timeline" was dropped was because we knew practically nothing about it, so it was easy to write it out of existence. For an in-universe explanation, I'd just say that it was overwritten when "Trunks Timeline" Trunks came back in time, effectively replacing the "??? Timeline" with the "Main Timeline". Those are just my thoughts, anyway.

I think I know which timeline you're talking about; if it's the one I'm thinking of, it just mentions where two or three of the movies theoretically would take place. (I feel like it was Movie 5 and Movie 12, but don't quote me on that.)

[Lord Beerus]

If its a "side story", then its apart from the main story. The term "side story" has a connotation of differentiation to it. It could have been called simply a continuation of the story, but instead it was called a "side story". In a franchise with no defined "canon", that's as close as anything gets of being called "non-canon".

The franchise does have a defined canon: the main manga that Toriyama wrote.

[Kamiccolo9]

If its a "side story", then its apart from the main story. The term "side story" has a connotation of differentiation to it. It could have been called simply a continuation of the story, but instead it was called a "side story". In a franchise with no defined "canon", that's as close as anything gets of being called "non-canon".

The franchise does have a defined canon: the main manga that Toriyama wrote.

This topic is not the place for this.

[rereboy]

If its a "side story", then its apart from the main story. The term "side story" has a connotation of differentiation to it. It could have been called simply a continuation of the story, but instead it was called a "side story". In a franchise with no defined "canon", that's as close as anything gets of being called "non-canon".

The franchise does have a defined canon: the main manga that Toriyama wrote.

Actually, no, because no one official, like the author or the company, ever said "this is canon". There's a difference between existing an established canon and the manga being obviously part of the canon if someone establishes it.

So, in short, the manga would obviously be part of the canon if a canon was established, but no one has established a canon.

[Herms]

Funnily enough, the Chozenshuu timeline doesn't list one of the timelines present in the Daizenshuu excerpt that timeline came from.

Black Hawk already noted this, but yeah, it drops the fourth timeline out. The weird one where Trunks isn't present at the Cell Games because he had to go back to his own timeline and use the emergency shutdown thingy to destroy the androids. The timeline explanation Chouzenshuu 4 uses is actually taken straight from DB Landmark; they both stick with the three timelines we actually directly see in the main series (the main one, the one future Trunks comes from, and the one Cell comes from...OK, I guess we don't really see Cell's timeline, but we see Cell). Sort of a minimalist "there can't possibly be any less than this" approach.

There is another timeline I've seen floating around that includes a few movies, along with a disclaimer saying that they wouldn't actually fit where they are placed. I don't know what it's from, but I've seen Herms reference it recently.

That's from Daizenshuu 6. It's not a single big timeline, but before the entry for each movie, there's a mini timeline showing the movie sandwiched between two events from the main series. No year numbers or anything, but simply "Goku fights Piccolo at TB --> DBZ Movie 1 --> Raditz arrives on Earth". That sort of thing. Then below that there's a brief paragraph of explanation, which often involves pointing out ways the movie doesn't quite fit into the main series timeline. Sometimes they describe it as a "movie-only story", or "the events of a parallel world", or just matter-of-factly note that "it's a mystery why everyone would be so relaxed right before the Cell Games". They probably don't spot as many contradictions as continuity-minded fans would, but it's notably one of the relatively few places in any official material where they flat-out say "yeah, the events of these movies really don't fit anywhere, do they?"

[Dyno]

The franchise does have a defined canon: the main manga that Toriyama wrote.

You should give up. If there is a negative side on Kanzenshuu forum, is that everything is canon, regardless of even what the author says. Films and OVAs take place in the manga accordingly to some people here. That being said, they strangely like a story with tons of plotholes. But... We can only respect the personal choice. There we have it.

[Herms]

If there is a negative side on Kanzenshuu forum, is that everything is canon, regardless of even what the author says.

That's not an aspect of the Kanzenshuu forums, it's simply the state of the Dragon Ball franchise: neither Toriyama nor any of the rights holders have bothered to define an official canon. That's a fact. As a result, all talk of canon with regards to DB is simply fans defining fan-made canon for the sake of fan discussion. Nothing wrong with doing that, but you've got to remember that's all it is: a fan-made concept.

Anyway, this thread's supposed to be more about GT's status as a "side-story", so we should really focus on that more than general discussion about canon.

[The Tori-bot]

"Side-story" doesn't really mean anything with regard to canonicity. I mean, look at the "Kakashi Side Story" in Naruto. You kind of need that thing to understand the entire 15+ years of manga. Pretty sure that's as canon as it gets. It means what it means - apart from the main story, which as the OP pointed out usually involves events running parallel or on the fringes of whatever it's a side-story to. Toriyama doesn't consider it part of his main story - of course he doesn't, he didn't write or draw it - but calling it a "side-story" says nothing about its place in continuity, which is what everyone really wants to know.

[voltlunok]

I would first off like to say thank you Kamiccolo9 for this thread. This has always been one of the things in the fandom that makes me tear my hair out with frustration and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one trying to lay some reason down with this topic. Secondly, I think some take the term side story to mean non-canon because they hear it twisted out of context to equate non-canon, which is something this very quote has done a lot! I honestly think the quote was put in that vague terms to let Toriyama decide later what to do with GT and I hope he does...something with it. An offcial timeline would be nice but I think the reason none has been given is because they want people to make their own timelines with DB and have a unique timeline to them that they can discuss with others.

Overall I agree with a lot of things stated here and hope you don't mind me throwing this thread link around a little!

[Kamiccolo9]

I would first off like to say thank you Kamiccolo9 for this thread. This has always been one of the things in the fandom that makes me tear my hair out with frustration and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one trying to lay some reason down with this topic. Secondly, I think some take the term side story to mean non-canon because they hear it twisted out of context to equate non-canon, which is something this very quote has done a lot! I honestly think the quote was put in that vague terms to let Toriyama decide later what to do with GT and I hope he does...something with it. An offcial timeline would be nice but I think the reason none has been given is because they want people to make their own timelines with DB and have a unique timeline to them that they can discuss with others.

Overall I agree with a lot of things stated here and hope you don't mind me throwing this thread link around a little!

Thanks, and feel free

I think part of the problem is, without any clear declaration of canonicity, lots of people just jump onto whatever they can get, and blow it way out of proportion. And these people get listened to by others who proceed to spread the misinformation further, until stuff reaches "Toriyama meant to end at the Freeza Arc" levels of rumors.

[Cold Skin]

The "side story" comment by Toriyama could really be interpreted in both ways, that's the thing. That statement alone will never be clear unless he someday releases a new statement.
Which could happen with the new movies, as one of the interviewers could ask something like "when writing that continuation of the manga - as you put it -, do you thing of the way it could ultimately tie up with GT?" and then he would probably give an answer that would say if he acknowledges GT or if it's just something he doesn't take in account.

In the meantime, there are really two possibilities, because the fact that he chose to specifically qualify it as a "side story" can be both to diminish GT's importance or to establish GT's importance, and we'll never really know which one he meant from the top of his head.

POSSIBILITY N°1 - "Side story" can be a convenient way he has to say it's not THE story, like saying "a nice bonus story of someone imagining a possible continuation", pretty much like all fanfics could be called "side stories", stories that are made apart from the original one and using the original one as a basis to start something. Like the original is the core, and the side stories are all branches that grow on the sides and are not relevant to the core itself. Knowing that Toriyama usually has a way of saying things that seems to slightly imply that he's not too comfortable with what he has not written himself, just like when he commented Evolution could be something like a parallel universe, when it was also likely a way to gently say "remember this is not MY story like I want it".
--> He said GT is a side story as a gentle way of conveniently keeping it as a mere bonus that will not impact negatively his own work, likely because the ideas didn't come from him and truth be told, he probably doesn't know that much about it so it would be understandable that he sorts of wants to keep it apart from his own story's continuity and how he would depict the future lives of his characters.

POSSIBILITY N°2 - "Side story" can be a way to say that he accepts it in his continuity, that it is indeed sort of a "companion story" to his own story, a story that goes just alongSIDE what he made. Knowing Toriyama, there's a good chance he hasn't really followed what's going on in GT, but he was pretty carefree until recent years and would pretty much be like "yeah, yeah, I leave it up to you, I trust that you guys at Toei will know how to handle my story". So he could mean "side story" as a way of saying "yeah, you should have that story at my story's sides, as it sorts of completes it, it's a companion story that helps completing it".
--> He said GT is a good companion to his story that completes it, a story that deserves to go side-by-side with his story (or rather "one after the other").

So, yeah, I know it's not helping much and that's probably the kind of answer you don't wanna hear, but I really think Toriyama's "side story" statement could really be either a way to keep GT at a safe distance or a way to embrace it, and that we'll never really know with just that statement.

[VegettoEX]

I think that's a great question that I would like an answer to, and from more of a "What goes on in your mind when you think about marketing this?" perspective rather than a "tell me how it all works in-universe" perspective:

"Did you / are you think(ing) about how this relates to a lead in to Dragon Ball GT when you created _________?"

I know I keep pointing out the very end of the manga and how, if you want to be consistent about saying "well such-and-such was never mentioned in GT, soooooo....." you have to then say, "Well no-one at the end of the manga mentioned these crazy fights with Beerus or Freeza, soooooo..." And like I say, the manga can't somehow not be canonical to itself, so you have to acknowledge the out-of-universe situations that create these information tidbits that get "left out" (because they didn't exist at the time).

Even if he/they/someone said, "Correct; we specifically write things vague enough so nothing absolutely prevents GT from happening!"... for many folks, that still wouldn't necessarily be enough to be a formal canon definition.

And I'm OK with that. ^_~

[Kamiccolo9]

So, yeah, I know it's not helping much and that's probably the kind of answer you don't wanna hear, but I really think Toriyama's "side story" statement could really be either a way to keep GT at a safe distance or a way to embrace it, and that we'll never really know with just that statement.

Good post, although I feel that your point is more parallel to mine rather than a direct response to it. You brought up importance to the main story, but that doesn't really matter in terms of canonicity.

I'm just pointing out that side stories are not, by their nature, inherently non-canon. That doesn't mean that all side stories are canon, either, but it does mean that the label cannot be used to determine the canonicity of GT.

If GT is "non canon," it's because of other reasons, not because it's a side story.

However, I guess an interesting question would be who has greater control over the franchise at this point? Toriyama, or Toei? Just like it's not Lucas' call to determine "what counts" in Star Wars anymore, what Toriyama would prefer to be connected to his story might be irrelevant.

[Hellspawn28]

When Toriyama called GT a side story, it sound like that he made GT sound like it was a spin off to the manga then being a real sequel to DBZ.

[Dyno]

When Toriyama called GT a side story, it sound like that he made GT sound like it was a spin off to the manga then being a real sequel to DBZ.

Indeed. The same goes for what he says about the movies (except Movie 14 and Movie 15) in Daizenshuu 6.

[Kamiccolo9]

When Toriyama called GT a side story, it sound like that he made GT sound like it was a spin off to the manga then being a real sequel to DBZ.

And, as I said, "spinoff" does not equate to non-canon. Boston Legal is a spinoff to the Practice. Batman Beyond is a spinoff of BTAS. That doesn't make them non canon.

When Toriyama called GT a side story, it sound like that he made GT sound like it was a spin off to the manga then being a real sequel to DBZ.

Indeed. The same goes for what he says about the movies (except Movie 14 and Movie 15) in Daizenshuu 6.

He said that they were alternate universes. Trunks' and Cell's futures are alternate universes.

If the movies are non canon, it's not because of that quote.

[Black Hawk]

I rewatched the final few episodes of GT a while ago, and it got me thinking about its side-story status again and helped me find a word that I'd been looking for.

Supplemental.

I feel that, as a side-story, GT is supplemental to the "main" series. While it isn't required or even necessary, it's sort of like a groovy little extra that came with your purchase.

"But wait, there's more! If you pre-order Dragon Ball, we'll throw in an additional 64 episodes to go with your purchase! That's right, 64 extra episodes!"

GT is similar to the third season of the Shugo Chara! anime, entitled Shugo Chara Party!; the first two seasons (Shugo Chara! and Shugo Chara!! Doki) of the anime cover the entirety of the manga, while the third season was added (presumably) because fans wanted more; they wanted additional/bonus content to go with what already existed.

I wish that referring to GT as "supplemental material" would kill the "GT is/isn't canon" debates and arguments, but, for what it's worth, I think that viewing GT as bonus/extra content comparable to that of a purchase bonus supports a viewpoint of "Those who preordered (aka view GT as "canon") received bonus content (aka include GT in the "main" story), and those who ordered afterward (aka view GT as "non-canon") simply got the main package (aka don't include GT in the "main" story)."

[Hellspawn28]

When Toriyama called GT a side story, it sound like that he made GT sound like it was a spin off to the manga then being a real sequel to DBZ.

And, as I said, "spinoff" does not equate to non-canon. Boston Legal is a spinoff to the Practice. Batman Beyond is a spinoff of BTAS. That doesn't make them non canon.

That can be said for some spin offs but not all of them. For example, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a spin off movie and is no longer consider to be canon to the X-Men movies thanks to Days of Future Past. The way on how Toriyama called GT a side story made it sound like that GT is a spin off story to the manga then being a real direct sequel.

[Kamiccolo9]

When Toriyama called GT a side story, it sound like that he made GT sound like it was a spin off to the manga then being a real sequel to DBZ.

And, as I said, "spinoff" does not equate to non-canon. Boston Legal is a spinoff to the Practice. Batman Beyond is a spinoff of BTAS. That doesn't make them non canon.

That can be said for some spin offs but not all of them. For example, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a spin off movie and is no longer consider to be canon to the X-Men movies thanks to Days of Future Past. The way on how Toriyama called GT a side story made it sound like that GT is a spin off story to the manga then being a real direct sequel.

That's the point. Being a spinoff in and of itself doesn't make it canon or non canon. Therefore, GT's status as a side story has no effect on it's canonicity. There are other reasons that can be used, but being a side story isn't one of them.

[Herms]

He said that they were alternate universes. Trunks' and Cell's futures are alternate universes.

Well, he said he takes the movies as "stories in a different dimension than the main story of the manga". Which I suppose arguably amounts to the same thing, but anyway, that's the wording used.