Mercenary wrote:
And what exactly do I not understand? That Brolly isn't canon? That just means he didn't appear in the proper storyline. Would you deny it?
You do not understand a few things.
1. "Canon" is not an adjective. The term is "canonical". "Canon" and "Canonicity" are the substantives.
2. The Canonicity argument is something only the realy stubborn fans still cling to the notion that there is a properly established canonicity when it actually is not. Dragon Ball is very foggy about that.There are multiple rights holders and they will all do hell and say outright "this is canonical and this is not" because they will lose money from that.
3. Canonical does not mean "it appears in the proper story". Nor does it mean what other fans are trying to make up with magical arguments like "it does not make sense it ain't cannnnnon, it is not made by Toriyama so it ain't cannnnnon, it sux ass so it ain't kannenn, it is not in the manga so it ain't caanonnnn, I am a fan and I have the magical power of imagination to decide what matters for a franchise I do not even own". The rights holders can decide what they acknowledge within their body of work as one connected part. They will never ever say "this is and this is not". Fans are trying their best to twist words like "ohhh, ohh!! side story so it ain't canon!!!" but that is also not how it works.
There will never be a canonicity statement about Dragon Ball in a way fans wish for.
So what would I not deny: Broly is a movie character. But THAT'S IT. And even if Dragon Ball would have a properly established canonicity your post would still be unasked for. What exactly would your first post mean? Nothing.