FANDOM

7,277 Pages

Broly's Yellow Eyed Black Hair Form

Isn't It Possible This Is Just A-Type Super Saiyan? Bob1200 (talk) 15:15, July 20, 2018 (UTC)

  • It probably is. Not confirmed yet tho. --Neffyarious (talk) 15:39, July 20, 2018 (UTC)
  • Doubt it. They are not obligated to follow non-canon Broly's transformation scheme to a T, along with the Daiz schematics they created for those movies. This is just the "Wrathful" form as far as we know. Xfing (talk) 23:20, November 6, 2018 (UTC)
Your four months late. DragonEmeperor (talk) 23:29, November 6, 2018 (UTC)

Berserk

I wonder if the lack of pupils is the primary sign of going berserk. This seems to be the case as when characters get really, really mad in the show their pupils disappear.--Hulk10 (talk) 22:16, July 20, 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Broly has a tail in the DBS movie but its likely wrapped around his waist.--Hulk10 (talk) 21:43, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

Now we know that Paragus removed Broly's tail, pity. I really liked the idea of him having a tail as an adult.--Hulk10 (talk) 00:46, December 8, 2018 (UTC)

"Broli"

You can't exactly give him an alternate name. This specific Broly is confirmed to be flatout called "Broly", as the movie poster even has it spelled as "Broly". So giving him the alternate name of "Broli" is akin to spreading false information. Though, this is likely to be disregarded either way, so not sure why I'm even bothering. ExyleCage (talk) 17:24, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

Going by your logic, including "Bra" as an alternate name in Bulla's article is spreading false information because both Toei and Toyotaro spell it as Bura in the manga and anime, even though it's her real name. Yon!米津愛主!Golden Frieza artVisit my talk page! 16:08, July 23, 2018 (UTC)


Which is perfectly sound logic. If there's no source saying her name is spelled "Bra", then it's Bura. If there's, say, a Spanish source that calls him "Broli", then it's all good, but every canon source so far calls him "Broly". It is INDEED spreading false information and I just don't see why nobody understands that. ExyleCage (talk) 17:19, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

Brackets

Good decision to give to THAT Broly a brackets with information.--Date450190486 11:26, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

(BR)

Haven't been here in a while. What's the BR from? Stitchking1 (talk) 13:24, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

It probably stands for "Broly Revised" in order to differentiate him from the original Broly. DragonEmeperor (talk) 19:48, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

To offer a different opinion wouldn't Broly (Super) make more sense? Broly: BR works but seems a little weird for some reason. Just my two centsTenevhrael (talk) 12:08, December 31, 2018 (UTC)


How about Broly: Canon, or Broly: Reimagined? Gogeta Omni (talk) 14:18, January 7, 2019 (UTC)


I just made those points - the BR doesn't stand for "Broly Revised" or whatever - it's just a tag used for Broly Movie merchandise (mostly affiliated with DB Heroes - I haven't actually seen it used on ANYTHING else here in Japan aside from the DB Heroes cards).
It's not just Broly's cards either - the BR tag is applied to ANY card which is affiliated with the Broly Movie. I actually have a bunch of them atm and they're all Goku/Vegeta cards.
The BR tag IS being used inaccurately and kinda makes the credibility of the wiki kinda suspect, if such a thing is being stated without any real citation (and clearly contradicting the evidence). LordSchmee (talk) 06:52, January 30, 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've re-added this after it was removed by DragonEmeperor - afaik, removing posts from the talk page (unless by an admin for a legitimate grievance reason) is a bannable offense according to wiki rules. Admins, please review. I will notify an admin specifically, too. LordSchmee (talk) 12:04, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Move list is wrong

Someone has copy pasted the techniques list of the old Broly to the new one, including quotes we have no evidence he has even used with some of these. We should remove this until further notice



(Hadrimon (talk) 12:32, October 22, 2018 (UTC))

Broly wasn't born with a power of 10000

Wasn't he at 920 in the movie? The movie should take precedence over some supplementary, third party material. Xfing (talk) 13:43, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

His power kept fluctuating between 920 and 10'000. That is why the scouter scopes kept breaking. FlatZone (talk) 15:58, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

I think this page should be renamed

I mean... this version of Broly is the canon one, so I think that it deserves it's name to just be Broly, and the movie trilogy one to be Broly (Movie) or just merge the two pages, with the previous Broly being listed in a non-canon subheading, with his respective transformations in another separate sub-heading? Milkshake & Oreos (talk) 17:09, January 6, 2019 (UTC)

Canon or not, the First Broly movie's came first, this is the later addition to the franchise. Merging the pages was tried and didn't work out.ScipioLecter (talk) 00:02, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
It's not. It sounds stupid. And "canon" is only a fans term, it doesn't exist in the actual original media. For japanese - this is just other version of THE Broly.--Date450190486 06:08, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/Herms98/status/1070890625803804672 canon is a word for the authors. QuakingStar (talk) 06:40, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
That word is rarely used by authors and a discussion for that already happened and was settled quickly. As for merging the pages, we already had a discussion about it and the community ruled in favor of keeping them separated as they go through different events in their lives like Trunks and Future Trunks for example. DragonEmeperor (talk) 08:39, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
Canon isn't a "Fan term". It's a term used to differentiate from materiel that isn't part main story or what is a "What-if". Stating it's "Not used in the original media" doesn't make much sense, because it's not used directly in any media. Like refereeing to a story arc or saga.--ScipioLecter (talk) 17:56, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
For the vast majority of franchises, it absolutely is a fan term. If "canon" were an objective term, you wouldn't have Star Wars haters (or "fans", as they call themselves) saying that the prequels and the sequels aren't "canon".
Orion (T-B-C) 18:04, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
No it's not. It's an objective term, just because people use it incorrectly doesn't mean anything. People who say things like the prequel and sequels aren't canon are just using the term incorrectly. Star Wars is a perfect example of canon and non-canon, with a ton of the expanded universe being turned into non-canon materiel.--ScipioLecter (talk) 18:14, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
Well, they consider the original trilogy to be "the main story", therefore everything else is non-canon. They're using it just like you are. By the way, are you trying to say that movies are canon?
Orion (T-B-C) 18:18, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
No they aren't, because of Star Wars media type, all movies released under the Star Wars Franchise from the parent studio or creator are canon. This would also refer to any information given from the IP owner or who ever own's the copyright to the materiel. Non-canon refers things like books or video games, produced but not considered part of the story. They are essentially what-if scenarios, All the Dragon Ball movies up until battle of gods were non-canon. Star Wars for example had a huge expanded universe, which was considered canon to the story until the new films came out, which rendered it all non-canon. It doesn't matter if fans only considered the "original movies canon" because it's not up to them, they are using the term incorrectly, they just don't like the new materiel and call it non-canon to make it seem less valid.--ScipioLecter (talk) 18:58, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
Why were all the Dragon Ball movies until BoG non-canon and the ones from that point on were not, especially given that we got BoG and RoF in anime form (which I'm guessing is what you consider "the main story")?
PS: Materiel is something completely different. You mean "material".
Orion (T-B-C) 19:12, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
Because the creator and owners of the franchise said it was. It's not any more complicated than that. Those films were Incorporated into the story proper, and a referenced in the actual story. Other films are not, that is seen clearly here with Broly being introduced with the characters having never meet him before, if the other moives were canon, they'd know who Broly was.Those movies are non-canon because as far as the main story is concerned, they never happened. What is more is most of them couldn't of happened given time lines given.


P.S ad hominem isn't a good way to win a discussion. --ScipioLecter (talk) 19:24, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Cooler's Revenge could fit in the timeline because it happens during the three years they were training for the androids. And, Bojack Unbound could also fit given that it happens after the Cell Games and Future Trunks destroying the Future Andrdoids. DragonEmeperor (talk) 19:33, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some of the movies "Could" fit. Bojack and Cooler's first are two of only three or four movies that could, Bojack actually fit's the best, but most don't. And even if they "Could" fit, doesn't mean they are canon.--ScipioLecter (talk) 19:38, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't ad hominem, it was a genuine attempt to clear up what is a common mistake. Anyway, I leave it to those with greater patience than I to debate this. My vote is that this article should not be renamed nor altered in any way that appeases headcanons.
Orion (T-B-C) 20:03, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it should change either. I was, like you, trying to clear up a common mistake. Canon and Non-canon aren't fan terms, even though some people use them in improper ways to try and bolster there stance. But the terms aren't "fan terms".--ScipioLecter (talk) 20:09, January 7, 2019 (UTC)

Series like Star Wars do have an official canon, with employees who maintain it. No one that worked on DB used the term until about 2 years ago, so the only DB canons were fan-made. We’re very recently starting to hear about a seemingly official DB canon, albeit sometimes translated by fans from Japanese expressions to be “canon”. Anyway, I agree with the others that the original Broly page should not be renamed. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:00, January 8, 2019 (UTC)

Broly (Z) should retain his name, as it is what he has been known by since his debut years ago and is still known by. However Broly: BR will need to be changed to Broly (DBS), Broly: BR is from the Japanese game Heroes, while Broly (DBS) is from the English version of FighterZ. --Neffyarious (talk) 11:43, January 30, 2019 (UTC)   

I agree -Neffyarious - now can we please stop Dragon Emeperor from reverting my legitimate edits and deleting my posts from the talk page? LordSchmee (talk) 11:51, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

I agree wih Neffy too, Broly (DBS) is more intuitive than BR. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:28, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
So is it settled then. DragonEmeperor (talk) 02:49, January 31, 2019 (UTC)


As an aside, I would honestly propose renaming both pages in the interest of fairness and proper organisational skills anyway - Broly (Z Movies) and Broly (Super). Or whichever preferred nomenclature you prefer: original Broly page was just "Broly" because it was the only Broly at the time; that doesn't mean the name shouldn't change in order to be less confusing should another one come along.
In most administrative jobs, when a duplicate file or article is created, both articles are renamed for clarity (for instance, it prevents people accidentally reading through the whole "Broly (Z Movies)" article whilst trying to find info on "Broly (Super)" - even with a redirect at the top, it's not always clear). Wiki's organisation should follow the same pattern, imo. LordSchmee (talk) 03:04, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

I like this LordSchmee guy. Let's keeo him. Anyway, I agree both Broly's should be renamed. It's incredibly confusing the way we currently have it. ExyleCage (talk) 03:33, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

Well, what do you expect, we tried merging them and that didn't work out. Plus, its only named that way to differentiate him from the original. DragonEmeperor (talk) 03:40, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
Broly (DBZ) and Broly (DBS) would clear up confusion. It was much more confusing when they were merged considering they're different people. ExyleCage (talk) 04:48, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
Broly (DBS) would be alright. Our Spanish counterpart did it that way. DragonEmeperor (talk) 05:01, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the support ExyleCage - two renamed articles with proper nomenclature is the most sensible approach. DBZ and DBS work fine for those purposes: just as long as BR and the conjecture along with it get removed! LordSchmee (talk) 12:09, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

Why "continuity" is a better term than "dimension"

I'd like to discuss something that has been bothering me on this page and its the fact that the pages used "another" and "main" dimension to distinguish the two Broly's. That never really made much sense since nowhere has it ever been stated that the world of the main Dragon Ball anime and the Dragon Ball Z film series are different "dimensions". The term "continuity" would definitely make much more seamless sense as that's exactly what they are, different continuities that aren't exactly specified to be a place or dimension in the dimensional-universe itself. If it has been confirmed by anything official that the events of the DBZ films take place in this "other dimension" then my apologies, but I believe I haven't seen that anywhere. Invader Rob II (talk) 03:46, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to point out is how characters that aren't linked to the manga such as Z special or movie characters being re-used for Super have been changed in part to Toriyama's image, and that Broly and Paragus are the only characters that are so different from their original characters. Does that mean Bardock is from this "other dimension" and that we must mention that in his page? No, probably not. --Invader Rob II (talk) 03:51, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah you’re right we shouldn’t go by dimension, using continuity makes much more sense. Glad you pointed that out. (Sosuagwu17 (talk) 15:25, May 2, 2019 (UTC))

The movies taking place in another dimension comes from Toriyama himself

https://www.kanzenshuu.com/translations/daizenshuu-6-akira-toriyama-super-interview/ FlatZone (talk) 20:50, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.