Character derailment

Discussion, generally of an in-universe nature, regarding any aspect of the franchise (including movies, spin-offs, etc.) such as: techniques, character relationships, internal back-history, its universe, and more.
rereboy
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 10262
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Character derailment

Post by rereboy » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:43 am

It was the Bad Man shirt. Irresistible.

User avatar
Vice
Banned
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:20 pm

Re: Character derailment

Post by Vice » Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:17 pm

Insertclevername wrote: Oh, the cruel fate of being married to a highly attractive billionaire women your age while living in her big ol' house. :P :wink:
No amount of money in the world changes the fact that she's a stone cold bitch.

User avatar
Insertclevername
I Live Here
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:27 pm
Location: Eastern Zone 439

Re: Character derailment

Post by Insertclevername » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:56 pm

Vice wrote:
Insertclevername wrote: Oh, the cruel fate of being married to a highly attractive billionaire women your age while living in her big ol' house. :P :wink:
No amount of money in the world changes the fact that she's a stone cold bitch.
With a nice ass. :P

She really isn't stone cold at all. Just sorta full of her self. A bitch sure, but not heartless.
Last edited by Insertclevername on Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cipher wrote:Also, you can seriously like whatever and still get laid. That's a revelation that'll hit you at some point.

User avatar
B
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:15 am
Contact:

Re: Character derailment

Post by B » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:00 pm

I wouldn't say it's derailment so much as it was a wasted opportunity, but I've been thinking lately about 18 playing a larger role in the Buu arc. A woman comes back front and center since, really, the Piccolo Daimao arc, and she kicks ass. Adjust the power scale where Buu doesn't demolish her and there you go. She's at least as strong as Piccolo, right?
Keen Observation of Dragon Ball Z Movie 4's Climax wrote:Slug shits to see the genki

User avatar
RandomGuy96
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8881
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Character derailment

Post by RandomGuy96 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:09 pm

She's nowhere near as strong since he went into the ROSAT. Piccolo's almost certainly several times stronger by the Buu arc.
The Monkey King wrote:
RandomGuy96 wrote:
dbgtFO wrote: Please elaborate as I do not know what you mean by "pushing Vegeta's destruction"
He's probably referring to the Bardock special. Zarbon was the one who first recommended destroying Planet Vegeta because the saiyans were rapidly growing in strength.
It was actually Beerus disguised as Zarbon #StayWoke
Herms wrote:The fact that the ridiculous power inflation is presented so earnestly makes me just roll my eyes and snicker. Like with Freeza, where he starts off over 10 times stronger than all his henchmen except Ginyu (because...well, just because), then we find out he can transform and get even more powerful, and then he reveals he can transform two more times, before finally coming out with the fact that he hasn't even been using anywhere near 50% of his power. Oh, and he can survive in the vacuum of space. All this stuff is just presented as the way Freeza is, without even an attempt at rationalizing it, yet the tone dictates we're supposed to take all this silly grasping at straws as thrilling danger. So I guess I don't really take the power inflation in the Boo arc seriously, but I don't take the power inflation in earlier arcs seriously either, so there's no net loss of seriousness. I think a silly story presented as serious is harder to accept than a silly story presented as silly.

User avatar
Vice
Banned
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:20 pm

Re: Character derailment

Post by Vice » Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:07 pm

Well, if the point about the base Saiyans in BoG is true than he is probably the same strength relative to the Super Saiyans as he was in the Cell Games. Or at least on a completely different tier than her.

Nikkolas
Regular
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Character derailment

Post by Nikkolas » Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:27 pm

ABED wrote:
Nikkolas wrote:Vegeta never killed anyone okay? He only had Nappa do it.

And he only attempted to murder every last man, woman and child on Earth because he threw a temper tantrum about Goku being a challenge.
I don't know if this is a genuine argument or sarcasm. His underling did all of that on his command and if he had defeated the Z team, what do you think he would've done with every Earthling? Also, it's well established that Vegeta murdered mountains of people, children included.
It's sarcasm. Every time you try to point out how monstrous it is that Bulma made Yamcha stay under the same house as the guy who orchestrated his and his friends' murders, someone always toddles along and says "Vegeta never killed any of them!"

It's really kinda disgusting.

User avatar
VyeRo
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:20 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Character derailment

Post by VyeRo » Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:01 pm

DBZAOTA482 wrote:Of course, Vegeta's a victim of the circumstance. Bulma probably sought out Vegeta to spite Yamcha for supposedly cheating on her (anime filler I think touches upon this) and Vegeta was the first guy to treat her with respect instead of appeasing to her narcissistic mentality. The fact that she saw him shirtless probably helps.
That didn't happen though. We don't even see her actively pursueing Vegeta in filler, and certainly not to spite Yamcha. There's even no mention of him cheating (outside of Future Trunks mentioning it).
And Vegeta was the first guy to treat her with respect'? If anything, she had to teach him how to treat her with respect. :lol:
Nikkolas wrote:It's sarcasm. Every time you try to point out how monstrous it is that Bulma made Yamcha stay under the same house as the guy who orchestrated his and his friends' murders, someone always toddles along and says "Vegeta never killed any of them!"

It's really kinda disgusting.
Well, didn't the Namekians stay at Bulma's house as well? They have even better reason to object to Vegeta's presence.

But the group had no qualms about Vegeta staying at CC. No one even suggested the possiblity that Vegeta might turn on them and kill them all. So maybe they thought he wasn't that evil anymore, a reluctant ally who didn't seem to be dangerous.

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 20476
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

Re: Character derailment

Post by ABED » Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:50 pm

I never thought of the Namekians. In any event, it's not like they had better options.

Everyone on the show is way too quick to trust.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

User avatar
Draken
Banned
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:01 am

Re: Character derailment

Post by Draken » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:27 pm

DBZAOTA482 wrote: Of course, Vegeta's a victim of the circumstance. Bulma probably sought out Vegeta to spite Yamcha for supposedly cheating on her (anime filler I think touches upon this) and Vegeta was the first guy to treat her with respect instead of appeasing to her narcissistic mentality. The fact that she saw him shirtless probably helps.
I dunno about the anime, but I know TFS made a nice little segment on it 8)

Nikkolas
Regular
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Character derailment

Post by Nikkolas » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:33 pm

I think it's more like Bulma just loved Goku but she couldn't have Goku so Vegeta was the next best thing.

That's character consistency right there.

User avatar
Saiga
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8311
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:36 pm
Location: Space Australia

Re: Character derailment

Post by Saiga » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:38 pm

Nikkolas wrote:
It's sarcasm. Every time you try to point out how monstrous it is that Bulma made Yamcha stay under the same house as the guy who orchestrated his and his friends' murders, someone always toddles along and says "Vegeta never killed any of them!"

It's really kinda disgusting.
She didn't make Yamcha stay there, she let him. If he didn't like Vegeta living their he could have gone back to his own place. It's her parents' house, and as long as they're good with it, she can bloody well let whoever she wants crash there.

So I don't see what is so disgusting about it.

Also, people are going to say "Vegeta never killed any of them!" every time you imply that he did. You're just going to have to either accept that, or stop implying that.
Last edited by Saiga on Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm re-watching Dragon Ball GT in full on my blog. Check it out if you're interested in my thoughts on the series as I watch through it!

User avatar
Kid Buu
I Live Here
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:02 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Character derailment

Post by Kid Buu » Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:48 am

Gaffer Tape wrote:
Then prepare to kill me, at least for the former, but what bothers me even more than that is that characters pretty much just shrug off this complete act of betrayal rather than hurl Vegeta into the sun before he causes any more catastrophic damage. But as for the rest of the characters, their complete idiocy of a "plan" coupled with their ridiculous selfishness at the beginning of the arc by saying, "Yeah, sure, we'll let Dr. Gero's evil plan come to fruition or else we'll be bored," only to pull a 180 (except for Vegeta) and say, "No, we can't let Cell's evil plan come to fruition because that's irresponsible." Puh-leeze.
Hmm? Trunks and Piccolo were the ones who didn't want Cell complete. Trunks would have easily have taken Bulma's idea to stop Gero. Piccolo in the Trunks arc and in the Android arc are not the same person.
Rocketman wrote:"Shonen" basically means "stupid sentimental shit" anyway, so it's ok to be anti-shonen.

Michsi
I Live Here
Posts: 4557
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm

Re: Character derailment

Post by Michsi » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:04 am

Kid Buu wrote:
Gaffer Tape wrote:
Then prepare to kill me, at least for the former, but what bothers me even more than that is that characters pretty much just shrug off this complete act of betrayal rather than hurl Vegeta into the sun before he causes any more catastrophic damage. But as for the rest of the characters, their complete idiocy of a "plan" coupled with their ridiculous selfishness at the beginning of the arc by saying, "Yeah, sure, we'll let Dr. Gero's evil plan come to fruition or else we'll be bored," only to pull a 180 (except for Vegeta) and say, "No, we can't let Cell's evil plan come to fruition because that's irresponsible." Puh-leeze.
Hmm? Trunks and Piccolo were the ones who didn't want Cell complete. Trunks would have easily have taken Bulma's idea to stop Gero. Piccolo in the Trunks arc and in the Android arc are not the same person.
The 180 actually happens before Cell. Piccolo and rest wanted to stop Dr. Gero from reactivating 17 and 18, despite that they defeated the first two relatively easy.

User avatar
DBZ Mick
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1130
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 1:38 am
Location: Australia

Re: Character derailment

Post by DBZ Mick » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:29 am

Well, Gohan was always very reluctant to fight unless he was forced to act and Cell was probably the first time he felt as though he was in the position to have the villain listen to him given it's his first real battle and it's to the death. Not to mention his latent powers were not brought upon the stuff that happens to him but rather the injustice he sees before him, which is why 16's death put it all to a climax (the callousness in how Cell treated the cyborg).
Somehow I can't see him reasoning like this with ReaCoom which was Gohan in a somewhat similar position. What about Freeza?
:P
It is in his character to be rude and a bit crass. He's a hick, with no formal education. That is Son Goku. That is who he is.

Superman in an orange Gi was the bastard son of FUNimation. Its not The real character, it is as false as Chatku.

-DemonRin

User avatar
DBZAOTA482
Banned
Posts: 6995
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Character derailment

Post by DBZAOTA482 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:35 am

DBZ Mick wrote:
Well, Gohan was always very reluctant to fight unless he was forced to act and Cell was probably the first time he felt as though he was in the position to have the villain listen to him given it's his first real battle and it's to the death. Not to mention his latent powers were not brought upon the stuff that happens to him but rather the injustice he sees before him, which is why 16's death put it all to a climax (the callousness in how Cell treated the cyborg).
Somehow I can't see him reasoning like this with ReaCoom which was Gohan in a somewhat similar position. What about Freeza?
:P
1. He had no choice but to fight whenever he fought back, and it was made known that daddy was going to be coming home. Also, he didn't fight Freeza alone.
2. He wanted to revive Piccolo and co. not to appease to his Saiyan thirst for adrenaline.
fadeddreams5 wrote:
DBZGTKOSDH wrote:... Haven't we already gotten these in GT? Goku dies, the DBs go away, and the Namekian DBs most likely won't be used again because of the Evil Dragons.
Goku didn't die in GT. The show sucked him off so much, it was impossible to keep him in the world of the living, so he ascended beyond mortality.
jjgp1112 wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:31 am I'm just about done with the concept of reboots and making shows that were products of their time and impactful "new and sexy" and in line with modern tastes and sensibilities. Let stuff stay in their era and give today's kids their own shit to watch.

I always side eye the people who say "Now my kids/today's kids can experience what I did as a child!" Nigga, who gives a fuck about your childhood? You're an adult now and it was at least 15 years ago. Let the kids have their own experience instead of picking at a corpse.

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 20476
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

Re: Character derailment

Post by ABED » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:01 am

Why does it matter that he knew his dad was coming? He didn't know when.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

User avatar
Gaffer Tape
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6128
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Character derailment

Post by Gaffer Tape » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:32 pm

Kid Buu wrote:Hmm? Trunks and Piccolo were the ones who didn't want Cell complete. Trunks would have easily have taken Bulma's idea to stop Gero. Piccolo in the Trunks arc and in the Android arc are not the same person.
None of them wanted Cell complete except for Vegeta. Piccolo tried to get #17 and #18 out of there when Cell showed up, as did #16. Trunks tried beating up Vegeta to stop it. Tenshinhan nearly sacrificed his own life to do so. Kuririn struggled with destroying #18 entirely to stop it from happening. And like Mischi says, it was pretty much the same thing when they all try to head off Dr. Gero returning to his laboratory. If by you saying that Piccolo isn't the same person means his assimilation of God, then that doesn't apply there, yet he was leading the charge to stop #17 and #18 from being activated.
Do you follow the most comprehensive and entertaining Dragon Ball analysis series on YouTube? If you do, you're smart and awesome and fairly attractive. If not, see what all the fuss is about without even having to leave Kanzenshuu:

MistareFusion's Dragon Ball Dissection Series Discussion Thread! (Updated 2/16/26!)
Current Episode: The Airtight Case for Slice of Life! - Dragon Ball Dissection: The Resurrection 'F' Arc Part 1

User avatar
VyeRo
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:20 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Character derailment

Post by VyeRo » Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:33 pm

Nikkolas wrote:I think it's more like Bulma just loved Goku but she couldn't have Goku so Vegeta was the next best thing.

That's character consistency right there.
Except she didn't 'love' Goku and it was never implied in the series. Yes, I know she thought he was 'hot' or something when he got older and then later on on Namek she made this comment about him, but it was never implied that she loved him in a romantic way and those comments were innocent enough.
And about character consistency, it depends on whether you think Vegeta is an upgrade or downgrade from Yamcha. :lol:

Nikkolas
Regular
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Character derailment

Post by Nikkolas » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:27 pm

VyeRo wrote:
Nikkolas wrote:I think it's more like Bulma just loved Goku but she couldn't have Goku so Vegeta was the next best thing.

That's character consistency right there.
Except she didn't 'love' Goku and it was never implied in the series. Yes, I know she thought he was 'hot' or something when he got older and then later on on Namek she made this comment about him, but it was never implied that she loved him in a romantic way and those comments were innocent enough.
And about character consistency, it depends on whether you think Vegeta is an upgrade or downgrade from Yamcha. :lol:
Well I was half-joking. I ship Goku and Bulma but I'm fully aware there's little to support them in canon.

As for being n upgrade or downgrade from Yamcha, the situations are different. She never had a kid with Yamcha somehow. Maybe she forgot to take the pill when she was with Vegeta that one night or whatever

I would say Yamcha was certainly a better boyfriend in the beginning as she was an actual boyfriend. Vegeta became a decent husband (they did get married by Buu, right?) eventually.

Well until he started blowing up innocent people in front of her. Logically that would damage a relationship.

Post Reply