How Does Minus Contradict The Manga?

[Dayspring]

I've seen numerous posts from people across several threads stating that DB Minus contradicts the manga. I see how it contradicts the Bardock special, but that's not the manga. Even Radditz remembering Goku without any Saiyan clothing makes sense, because the first time Goku wears Saiyan clothing is after Radditz lasts sees him.

So how does Minus contradict the manga?

[Kamiccolo9]

I've seen numerous posts from people across several threads stating that DB Minus contradicts the manga. I see how it contradicts the Bardock special, but that's not the manga. Even Radditz remembering Goku without any Saiyan clothing makes sense, because the first time Goku wears Saiyan clothing is after Radditz lasts sees him.

So how does Minus contradict the manga?

Roshi calls Goku an infant when Gohan finds him at one point, and Minus makes Goku out to be 3 years old, which would be more of a toddler.

Other than that, and granted, this is only what I've heard, as I don't remember the Roshi quote, nor have I read Minus, I haven't heard of anything else.

[eledoremassis02]

I've seen numerous posts from people across several threads stating that DB Minus contradicts the manga. I see how it contradicts the Bardock special, but that's not the manga. Even Radditz remembering Goku without any Saiyan clothing makes sense, because the first time Goku wears Saiyan clothing is after Radditz lasts sees him.

So how does Minus contradict the manga?

I think it has to do with Gokus age and the fact that he wasn't sent out to destroy earth (which is now seen a misconception by Vegeta, Nappa, Raditz and Jaco) but just in hiding.

and Bardocks design (simple change of cloths but I'm grasping straws )

[DBZAOTA482]

-Goku being sent to Earth as a toddler... with armor... and to be safe when it was established for years he was sent there as an infant and was meant to destroy it.
-Gine being responsible for Goku's good nature when it was established for years it was caused by him falling hard on his head.
-Bardock being an attentive parent even though Saiyans are distinct parents by nature.

[Kamiccolo9]

I don't see how Bardock wearing a different set of armor is a contradiction. Does Minus show Bardock's death?

[Dyno]

Bardock's design is a contradiction as well.

Well, not for me, Dragon Ball Minus takes place one month before Vegeta's destruction, which means a lot of scenes from the TV Special still can be considered, and to explain Bardock's headband, I can totally consider all the invasion on Planet Meat, that scene does not contradict anything.

[Zephyr]

Bardock's design is a contradiction as well.

Characters changing clothes doesn't make for a contradiction.

[eledoremassis02]

Bardock's design is a contradiction as well.

Well, not for me, Dragon Ball Minus takes place one month before Vegeta's destruction, which means a lot of scenes from the TV Special still can be considered, and to explain Bardock's headband, I can totally consider all the invasion on Planet Meat, that scene does not contradict anything.

Yea, I don't considerate a contradiction too as there is a lot of wiggle room but, I figured I'd throw it in.

[Dyno]

Characters changing clothes doesn't make for a contradiction.

Then Bardock going back to time does not make his OVA a bad thing.

We don't have a explanation for Bardock time travel (as you guys use this to say it is a bad OVA) as we don't see Bardock changing clothes...

[Kamiccolo9]

Characters changing clothes doesn't make for a contradiction.

Then Bardock going back to time does not make his OVA a bad thing.

We don't have a explanation for Bardock time travel (as you guys use this to say it is a bad OVA) as we don't see Bardock changing clothes...

How does changing clothes remotely equate with breaking the established time travel rules of the series?

[Dyno]

How does changing clothes remotely equate with breaking the established time travel rules of the series?

Don't know. I'm just using your logical.

[Kamiccolo9]

How does changing clothes remotely equate with breaking the established time travel rules of the series?

Don't know. I'm just using your logical.

No, you're not. You're making absolutely zero sense.

[Zephyr]

Characters changing clothes doesn't make for a contradiction.

Then Bardock going back to time does not make his OVA a bad thing.

We don't have a explanation for Bardock time travel (as you guys use this to say it is a bad OVA) as we don't see Bardock changing clothes...

First, you're confusing me with someone who takes issue with Bardock being blasted into the past.

Second, you're comparing apples and oranges here. A character changing clothes is something implicit to common sense. Being sent back in time due to an explosion isn't.

[Dyno]

First, you're confusing me with someone who takes issue with Bardock being blasted into the past.

Second, you're comparing apples and oranges here. A character changing clothes is something implicit to common sense. Being sent back in time due to an explosion isn't.

Well, since 2011 I have only seen a lot of people complaining about the OVA using that stupid reason... If you are not one of them, well... Congratulations.

Hum... So we can accept oranges but not apples? Interesting.

[Kamiccolo9]

First, you're confusing me with someone who takes issue with Bardock being blasted into the past.

Second, you're comparing apples and oranges here. A character changing clothes is something implicit to common sense. Being sent back in time due to an explosion isn't.

Well, since 2011 I have only seen a lot of people complaining about the OVA using that stupid reason... If you are not one of them, well... Congratulations.

Hum... So we can accept oranges but not apples? Interesting.

If you haven't seen any of the numerous other problems people have with EoB, you really haven't been paying attention.

[Dyno]

If you haven't seen any of the numerous other problems people have with EoB, you really haven't been paying attention.

Then make a thread for it.

[Kamiccolo9]

If you haven't seen any of the numerous other problems people have with EoB, you really haven't been paying attention.

Then make a thread for it.

You make a thread for it? I don't care enough to put in that much effort to make a single fanboy pay attention to what the rest of the fanbase has been saying for years now.

[Zephyr]

Hum... So we can accept oranges but not apples? Interesting.

If I'm understanding the complaints correctly, oranges are something that is implicit to common sense, and thus it doesn't need explaining. You really don't need to explain the fact that someone changed their clothes.

Apples, however, are not implicit to common sense. It would be greatly beneficial to the suspension of disbelief of the readers if these apples, which don't behave the way apples have generally been shown to behave throughout the series, were supplied an official explanation for why they behave differently. Time Travel has been shown to be done via time machines, has been shown to create new branching timelines, and explosions have been never implied to create rifts in time. EoB seems to be presented in a way that is not a new timeline, and time travel is done via a method that not only was never used for time travel, but was also never implied to create the impetus for time travel. It doesn't jive with a lot of people.

Again, though, I don't have a problem with this. I do look at it as a new timeline being created, and I can accept that space time could maybe possibly behave in a screwy manner when various unseen and unknown factors are in place. The problems that others will have is that we're not being provided with these factors, and thus it looks incredibly contrived. I don't take issue though, as I'm fine with not knowing everything about the laws of the Dragon Ball world's screwball physics.

But like Kamiccolo9 said, the time travel isn't the extent of why people don't like Episode of Bardock, and that much has been explained in great detail on these forums.

[Black Hawk]

Here's my attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies I've seen mentioned since the release of Dragon Ball Minus. (Note: I will probably do a really bad job, but oh well.)

Kakarotto is three years old when he's sent to Earth, but Kamesennin states that Son Gohan found an infant.
---Kakarotto had also been kept in a stasis tube of sorts for three years since his birth, so, considering the only human/Saiyajin contact he'd had before being found by Son Gohan had been the very short time with his parents immediately prior to being sent to Earth (This also sort of implies that he was also not taught how speak any sort of comprehensible language.), he may as well have been a large infant.

Gine is responsible for Kakarotto's good nature, rather than falling into a ravine.
---If I'm not mistaken, it was never actually stated that Kakarotto inherited his good nature from his mother; in fact, toward the end of the Ginga Patrol Jako manga, he was shown eating at Son Gohan's table, his behavior and expression both rather aggressive. It's also never explicitly stated that his falling into a ravine and hitting his head was retconned.

Burdock showed care for his family, which goes against the Saiyajin race's traits in general.
---Burdock stated in Dragon Ball Minus that Gine's gentle nature had rubbed off on him, or something to that effect.

The manga depicts the final confrontation of The Father of Zetto Senshi Son Gokū in a flashback of sorts.
---Dragon Ball Minus did not actually state or even necessarily imply that Burdock didn't challenge Freeza before Planet Vegeta's destruction.

Edit:
Raditz says that Kakarotto was sent to Earth to wipe out its inhabitants, which isn't mentioned in Dragon Ball Minus at all.
---Gine mentioned that "Being an infiltration baby can be very dangerous!" I was under the impression that an infiltration baby's job is to wipe out a planet's inhabitants as it grows up. Gine also mentions that she'll "tell Raditz about this too". Perhaps little Raditz assumed that Kakarotto's being sent to Earth meant that he was sent there to wipe out all of its people.

[Dyno]

Then shut the fuck up. Because as long as we don't have a fully in-depth explanation into the story, we can safely say Bardock went to another dimension, rather than stayed at the same timeline, which in fact would contradict what Trunks said. It is funny how one calls other "fanboy" when the first is stagnant into one thing that can't stop to think, or even create some plausible theories to make something work. I think I already said it, this is like wanting to be fed, rather than feeding yourself.

Again, though, I don't have a problem with this. I do look at it as a new timeline being created, and I can accept that space time could maybe possibly behave in a screwy manner when various unseen and unknown factors are in place. The problems that others will have is that we're not being provided with these factors, and thus it looks incredibly contrived. I don't take issue though, as I'm fine with not knowing everything about the laws of the Dragon Ball world's screwball physics.

But like Kamiccolo9 said, the time travel isn't the extent of why people don't like Episode of Bardock, and that much has been explained in great detail on these forums.

The first paragraph is pretty much how people should take the OVA or everything that does not have an explanation. People make a scandal over nothing, that could totally be fit if you have your own point of view.

Well, I did say I am here for years, but I didn't observe all those forums. I don't know what you guys said about the Episode of Bardock other than "it is bad because there isn't an explanation of how Bardock went to the past, and because it contradicts what Trunks said".

Whatever. I didn't meant to misrepresent the topic, sorry. Going back on-topic. Other than his clothes (and explained that it is not an actual contradiction in the same text), Dragon Ball Minus does not contradict the manga... As far as I can remember, of course.