Official On-Going Dragon Ball Super Movie #1 Thread: "Broly"

[Luso Saiyan]

There was no implied relationship between those characters, they were just close.

My point exactly. That doesn't stop a Google search from showing something else. Hence the fallacy.

You can almost bet something will go on between Broly and Cheelai from how they were portrayed in this movie.

You may bet on that, I do not. The movie shows mere friendship, nothing past that.

[PerhapsTheOtherOne]

With regards to Cheelai, while I can admit that she may have had a few obvious stereotypical fanservice moments, she did have a good bit of character interaction to showcase her character.

[JulieYBM]

New details from a Nagamine interview reveal that the storyboard was 170 minutes long and one of the cut scenes was a fight between Nappa and Raditz.

[Michsi]

70 minutes cut from the storyboard.Wow. The Nappa/Raditz fight or the childhood moment with Vegeta and Raditz arent' that interesting for me, but I still would've like to have seen it.

[Shaddy]

So that's the first we've heard about some of the cut content (can't wait for the inevitable post about how the movie "isn't a real story" without that stuff now), but if that's the most important distinction of what was cut it sounds like we really weren't missing much after all. I mean, does seeing Raditz and Nappa fight really add anything to the Broly story? Not really. It'd be interesting to learn what else was cut, but this does slightly satiate my worries that they took out something important.

[superfan2024]

This is now the second time that it has been stated that the movie's storyboard was almost cut in half (the first being Nagamine's August 2018 interview). What a shame.

[Miracles]

Hopefully we get the cut scenes in an extended cut DVD.

[Luso Saiyan]

So that's the first we've heard about some of the cut content (can't wait for the inevitable post about how the movie "isn't a real story" without that stuff now), but if that's the most important distinction of what was cut it sounds like we really weren't missing much after all. I mean, does seeing Raditz and Nappa fight really add anything to the Broly story? Not really. It'd be interesting to learn what else was cut, but this does slightly satiate my worries that they took out something important.

What is the "Broly story"? I think the story of the movie is not just about the character of Broly, but also a story about the Saiyan race. Hence why Toriyama took the opportunity to explore their backstory a bit through Vegeta, Broly and Goku and the characters related to them. In that sense, they are important, simply not enough to remain in the movie and compromise its running time (at least to Toei).

Is the half hour, non stop fight really important to the story? Is there even a story in there? Would we be "missing much" if that was cut in half? This is, of course all, subjective. To me, the backstory was by far the most interesting part of the movie and it pains me to be reminded that it was the part most affected by cut content. And since these apparently never left the storyboard phase, we will probably only see them if a TV version is eventually funded or in a possible retelling of the movie for the series.

[Shaddy]

They really aren't though. Goku and Vegeta's function in the film is to fight Broly, they have no connection to the scenes at the start, and said scenes concerning their parents contain really nothing new about saiyans or interesting in the context of the series. The only scenes where it feels fresh or different from DB are the ones about Broly and Paragus. Broly, despite not having the most lines, is essentially the protagonist of this film, even if that wasn't the intent. The parts of the backstory that don't focus on him and his father feel disjointed and needless. What relevance does seeing Bardock and Gine have to Goku's role in the film? Well, it's "the thing that happened to him", but other than that you could cut it out as well and it wouldn't matter (especially given how much Bardock sucks in everything outside his own TV special). King Vegeta's scenes are more related to Paragus and Broly than they are his son, and seeing Vegeta as a kid not giving a fuck doesn't really do anything for his scenes as an adult either. Seeing Raditz and Nappa fight, characters that are both less developed than saiyan-arc Vegeta and less related to the movie as a whole (basically just being obstacles for the heroes to move past rather than fleshed-out people in their own right) would only pad out the runtime with something even more meaningless.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

This does explain why the past stuff especially Nappa and Raditz got more marketing & commercialisation then their actual screen time deserved so I am less pissed about that but even then those are two characters I don't give a shit about so stuff being cut from them I am okay with.

BoG extended cut shows more content can make a film worse (or in BoG case even worse).

[majinwarman]

This does explain why the past stuff especially Nappa and Raditz got more marketing & commercialisation then their actual screen time deserved so I am less pissed about that but even then those are two characters I don't give a shit about so stuff being cut from them I am okay with.

BoG extended cut shows more content can make a film worse (or in BoG case even worse).

Do we know if the Blu-Ray will have an extended cut of the film?

[Luso Saiyan]

They really aren't though. Goku and Vegeta's function in the film is to fight Broly, they have no connection to the scenes at the start, and said scenes concerning their parents contain really nothing new about saiyans or interesting in the context of the series.

Of course they contain something new. Literally everything is new. That you happen to not find it interesting is subjective and beside the point. They are the surviving Saiyans that Broly is to face later, so it's perfectly natural to see the circumstances and what happened to them in contrast to Broly. Specially in the context of the series, of which Goku is the protagonist. Likewise, Freeza is another link that ties the past with the present.

What relevance does seeing Bardock and Gine have to Goku's role in the film? Well, it's "the thing that happened to him", but other than that you could cut it out as well and it wouldn't matter (especially given how much Bardock sucks in everything outside his own TV special).

The relevance is, again, the circumstances and fate of the protagonist of the series. Jarring (or a complete waste) would be to ignore how Goku got away because Broly is not part of it, when the movie was going to have part of the story set in the past. A past common between all the main characters of the movie: Goku, Vegeta, Broly, Paragus and Freeza.

King Vegeta's scenes are more related to Paragus and Broly than they are his son, and seeing Vegeta as a kid not giving a fuck doesn't really do anything for his scenes as an adult either.

That's not the point. The point was to show where he was and how he survived.

Seeing Raditz and Nappa fight, characters that are both less developed than saiyan-arc Vegeta and less related to the movie as a whole (basically just being obstacles for the heroes to move past rather than fleshed-out people in their own right) would only pad out the runtime with something even more meaningless.

I can describe a lot of things that ended up in the movie to be pointless and meaningless, as I've pointed out in the previous post. I can understand why they were deleted (that's not the point), but between having something new character interactions of known characters that we would not see otherwise (not all stories are related to the Saiyan past) and 15 minutes of mindless fighting, I'll take the former any day. Of course, most people want the latter, they want spetacle, and at the end of the day that's why the choice was made.

[Marlowe89]

The point of Goku's past - and by extension, his relationship with Bardock and Gine - was definitely to parallel and contrast with Broly's.

Both Saiyans are castaways from Planet Vegeta, but their circumstances are almost polar opposites: Bardock's reason for sending Kakarot away was an act of love that elicited his son's freedom, while Broly's situation was fueled by an act of jealousy (on behalf of King Vegeta) and, later, revenge (on behalf of Paragus) that resulted in Paragus inhibiting his son's freedom. This works because it contrasts both of them in a way that plays to Broly's misfortune as a character without overdoing their similarities to the extent of feeling hamfisted. The point is that it's tragic, and Broly's tragedy is partially strengthened by his background mirroring Goku's; without it, a lot of that nuance is lost. Foils exist to help emphasize the qualities of other characters more central to the plot, and they're particularly necessary for Broly because he's not outwardly expressive enough as a person to convey those attributes on his own.

That's why I disagree with the idea that none of the Minus material holds any relevance to the main themes of the film, because it absolutely does. You can argue that its presentation feels subdued, but it's certainly there.

[PFM18]

The point of Goku's past - and by extension, his relationship with Bardock and Gine - was definitely to parallel and contrast with Broly's.

Both Saiyans are castaways from Planet Vegeta, but their circumstances are almost polar opposites: Bardock's reason for sending Kakarot away was an act of love that elicited his son's freedom, while Broly's situation was fueled by an act of jealousy (on behalf of King Vegeta) and, later, revenge (on behalf of Paragus) that resulted in Paragus inhibiting his son's freedom. This works because it contrasts both of them in a way that plays to Broly's misfortune as a character without overdoing their similarities to the extent of feeling hamfisted. The point is that it's tragic, and Broly's tragedy is partially strengthened by his background mirroring Goku's; without it, a lot of that nuance is lost. Foils exist to help emphasize the qualities of other characters more central to the plot, and they're particularly necessary for Broly because he's not outwardly expressive enough as a person to convey those attributes on his own.

That's why I disagree with the idea that none of the Minus material holds any relevance to the main themes of the film, because it absolutely does. You can argue that its presentation feels subdued, but it's certainly there.

It's completely insane to say that the Minus Material doesn't hold relevance thematically, but you already described it perfectly. I definitely think it could have been done better, and I certainly wish the Minus part was longer, but it still served it's purpose at bare minimum in a serviceable way.

[Shaddy]

Of course they contain something new. Literally everything is new.

They are the surviving Saiyans that Broly is to face later, so it's perfectly natural to see the circumstances and what happened to them in contrast to Broly.

That's not the point. The point was to show where he was and how he survived.

Well, uh, no. They depict things we already knew happened with no details that end up being important. You can tell Goku and Vegeta survived by the fact that they're not dead. Everything else has already been explained. By the same logic, did we need to see a flashback to Vegeta's entire character arc to understand why he's fighting on Goku's side when the flashback shows him as the son of an evil king?

That you happen to not find it interesting is subjective and beside the point.

All of this is subjective. Saying only a specific piece of it is is just taking the long way around calling your own opinion objective.

between having something new character interactions of known characters that we would not see otherwise (not all stories are related to the Saiyan past) and 15 minutes of mindless fighting, I'll take the former any day. Of course, most people want the latter, they want spetacle, and at the end of the day that's why the choice was made.

That's giving minor characters (ones that idiots would call "fodder" today as if it means anything) a lot more credit than they deserve. "New character interactions" means jack shit for two people whose entire personalities amount to being a bad man that the heroes need to stop. At least I care about what happens to Goku, Vegeta and Broly.

[Luso Saiyan]

Well, uh, no. They depict things we already knew happened with no details that end up being important.

"We knew happened"? Who's "we"? And from where did we knew anything? Unless you've read Dragon Ball Minus (and we can't expect the movie audience to have done that) we knew nothing about any of this. And Minus was only part of the events depicted.

You can tell Goku and Vegeta survived by the fact that they're not dead.

We can't tell how and why they survived by the simple fact that they aren't dead.

Everything else has already been explained.

Where was everything else explained?

By the same logic, did we need to see a flashback to Vegeta's entire character arc to understand why he's fighting on Goku's side when the flashback shows him as the son of an evil king?

No, because this is a continuation of the series. And that's a false equivalence since the events of the past shown in the movie were never depicted anywhere else.

All of this is subjective.

Why the events of the past were depicted in the movie is not subjective. One's appreciation or derision is.

That's giving minor characters (ones that idiots would call "fodder" today as if it means anything) a lot more credit than they deserve. "New character interactions" means jack shit for two people whose entire personalities amount to being a bad man that the heroes need to stop. At least I care about what happens to Goku, Vegeta and Broly.

No, it's not giving credit. It's appreciating and being more interested in the exploration and interactions of certain characters than in extended scenes of mindless fighting, which the movie has plenty of. It's simply a matter of taste.

[Grimlock]

It's appreciating and being more interested in the exploration and interactions of certain characters than in extended scenes of mindless fighting.

It seems to be a very underestimated thing these days. I wonder how long it will take for the people in the production to finally realize how great and important interaction and mainly exploration can be.

[Shaddy]

"We knew happened"? Who's "we"? And from where did we knew anything? Unless you've read Dragon Ball Minus (and we can't expect the movie audience to have done that) we knew nothing about any of this. And Minus was only part of the events depicted.

Except we knew Goku and Vegeta survived. That's the only relevant thing about either of their backstories. Vegeta appears for just a moment with no new information revealed, and nothing about Bardock or Gine matters or has any effect on Goku.

We can't tell how and why they survived by the simple fact that they aren't dead.

Where was everything else explained?

We learned Goku was sent to Earth and Vegeta was on a mission at the start of the saiyan saga. Don't give me this "but the general audience" crap, the general audience of a Dragon Ball film is people who watched Dragon Ball.

No, because this is a continuation of the series. And that's a false equivalence since the events of the past shown in the movie were never depicted anywhere else.

Well, but they didn't need to be, because we already knew what happened. Raditz explains it clear as crystal in like the second chapter he's in. Minus's retcon only really makes the story worse, regardless. Most of the stuff that's actually unseen previously in Dragon Ball is completely bland and irrelevant in the case of Bardock and Gine, or else is good enough to actually tie into the plot of the film with King Vegeta and Paragus.

Why the events of the past were depicted in the movie is not subjective.

We didn't make the movie, so it actually is up to subjective interpretation. By the logic of the people who allowed the film to exist (aka the people in control of the series' money), most of the reason Bardock was in the movie at all is because Bardock is a popular character they can market. You're asserting that it's to inform of something the audience already knows or add weight to a character that remembers literally none of it, but you can't objectively prove that.

No, it's not giving credit. It's appreciating and being more interested in the exploration and interactions of certain characters than in extended scenes of mindless fighting, which the movie has plenty of. It's simply a matter of taste.

Except the "interaction" is literally A FIGHT. Between two dead antagonists that were never very interesting in their own right and I guarantee would not become as such just by seeing them punch each other for a while.

It seems to be a very underestimated thing these days. I wonder how long it will take for the people in the production to finally realize how great and important interaction and mainly exploration can be.

This is like skipping past every time Goku uses the spirit bomb or kaio-ken and then complaining that he didn't learn anything in the year he was dead and how you're so much smarter than the writers and other fans for saying "he should have gotten new moves". The entire fucking second quarter of the film, a full half-hour, is dedicated to interaction between both new and returning characters. Being intentionally ignorant and smarmy does nothing for you, especially as the guy who's biased to a fault toward Dragon Ball Fucking Heroes, the literal epitome of soulless mindless fight scenes with minimal to non-existent character interactions.

[Luso Saiyan]

It's appreciating and being more interested in the exploration and interactions of certain characters than in extended scenes of mindless fighting.

It seems to be a very underestimated thing these days. I wonder how long it will take for the people in the production to finally realize how great and important interaction and mainly exploration can be.

I've always loved that Z episode where Vegeta has a flashback that shows him with Raditz and Nappa while serving Freeza. It's filler, it wasn't in the manga (and what their talk about ends up contradicting what Raditz said). But I liked it because it gives us more about their characters, and it explores the relationship between the three of them, and between them, Freeza and his men.

Except we knew Goku and Vegeta survived. That's the only relevant thing about either of their backstories.

No, the relevant thing (and what was shown in the movie) is the how and why. Just like we ended up knowing how and why Broly survived, as opposed to simply being presented to him and simply accept the fact that he survived.

Vegeta appears for just a moment with no new information revealed, and nothing about Bardock or Gine matters or has any effect on Goku.

The revealed information is that they ignored the order that was given by Freeza.

We learned Goku was sent to Earth and Vegeta was on a mission at the start of the saiyan saga.

And in the movie we learned how and why Goku was sent to Earth, and how and why Vegeta, Raditz, Nappa and the other Saiyans survived.

Don't give me this "but the general audience" crap, the general audience of a Dragon Ball film is people who watched Dragon Ball.

People who watched Dragon Ball didn't see what the movie showed because it was never portrayed in the series nor in the manga of which it is based on.

Well, but they didn't need to be, because we already knew what happened. Raditz explains it clear as crystal in like the second chapter he's in.

Raditz explains his version of events. His version, turns out, is not what actually happened. There was more to it than that. More that the general audience was not aware of.

Minus's retcon only really makes the story worse, regardless. Most of the stuff that's actually unseen previously in Dragon Ball is completely bland and irrelevant in the case of Bardock and Gine, or else is good enough to actually tie into the plot of the film with King Vegeta and Paragus.

Again, I don't really care that you subjectively find it to be worse or bland. That's your opinion. The story is what it is and there is a reason for why it was included. That's not something debatable.

I obviously disagree that any of it is worse and bland, and explained why I care about the stuff that was cut. It's not like your opinion is an universal truth or more important than mine. You're free to not care about the cut content since it's not about stuff that you care about. You not caring about it doesn't make it not important or unnecessary. To the production, it was a less important part of the story they chose to show with the time they had, hence why it was cut. But it had importance, hence why it was part of the story and why it was storyboarded.

We didn't make the movie, so it actually is up to subjective interpretation. By the logic of the people who allowed the film to exist (aka the people in control of the series' money), most of the reason Bardock was in the movie at all is because Bardock is a popular character they can market. You're asserting that it's to inform of something the audience already knows or add weight to a character that remembers literally none of it, but you can't objectively prove that.

It's precisely because we didn't make the movie that is not up to our subjective interpretation. Bardock is in the movie because he's part of story and time period the movie explores, per Toriyama. He's part of Goku's origin, part of the reason for being sent away and part of the events of the demise of planet Vegeta. The story of the movie shows all of that, therefore Bardock is in it. Just like King Vegeta, Freeza, Paragus, Broly, etc...

Except the "interaction" is literally A FIGHT.

We literally don't know anything about the interaction other than the cut content includes a fight. It's obviously not solely a fight. The fight obviously has a context.

Between two dead antagonists that were never very interesting in their own right

They weren't interesting to you. They are interesting to me, therefore I'm interested in it.

[ruler9871]

Those anybody else think the U6 Saiyans (especially Kale) not being the Broly was a missed opportunity?