Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Bojack Unbound

Merge
This article should be merged with the Bojack Unbound article. Since Bojack only appeared in a DBZ movie, there's no reason for him to have his own page. NotSuper 16:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support:


 * 1) Squilibob 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bojack needs to keep his own page.

Re: Continuity
The Continuity section is wrong IMHO. Mr. Satan was suprised that they were in the tournament at all. And he had to cover the fact that he had seen the Golden-Haired Warriors before lest it reveal him as a fraud. --Kitch 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

-I agree with this, it should be removed. Are there any other scenes that could replace it in the continuity section so as not to leave it blank?

-I think we could actually say that this is one of the only movies that does fit into the continuity of the story line as other movies do not fit in place at all (unless I have missed something)


 * Trust me, the movie does not fit into the TV Series' Timeline. I have changed the article and put my reasons. Read them if you like.


 * Trunks having long hair is no plot hole, it could have grown back by the time he used the time machine. And the Grand Kai thing is FILLER. So it wouldn't be considered. KojiDude (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, Koji. But look, Bojack Unbound and the anime are one thing, and the manga is different. If B.U. was a feature manga, it still wouldn't be canon to the original manga, because as the article itself states, Chi-Chi was supposed to be pregnant with Goten and Trunks' sword was supposed to be gone due to the events of the Androids Saga. --Jienum 18:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we don't know how much time has passed, Chi-Chi could have only been pregnant for a few days or a week. Bulma could have forged Trunks another sword, fixed his current one, or he could have just gotten one from wherever he got the first one. KojiDude (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, the only continuity errors are a few minor ones, just like in the series. We can't label it non-canon just because of that. If we do, we might as well label half the series non-canon. KojiDude (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't matter whether the continuity errors are minor are major. If they exist, that means it doesn't fit into the continuity. Another thing: by the time Trunks had destroyed the androids in his bleak future, Goku and North Kai had started their now-considered-canonical journey to Grand Kai's Planet. The same thing is with the battles against Garlic Jr. Jienum 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And the sword forging doesn't make sense. It is believed that the sword was a gift from the Gods, something that can't easily be repaired with technology. And also, Trunks supposedly (I mean SUPPOSEDLY) got his sword from Tapion. How could he get another one? The only other sword like that belonged to Tapion's brother Minosha, and that one was long lost. Jienum 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't matter wether they're minor or major, then the whole series isn't canon because it has plot holes too. Labeling this non-canon is like labeling everything past the Freeza saga non canon. The Afterlife Tournament thing isn't considered canon by everyone. KojiDude (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no. Wait (chuckle). What I meant was if there is a continuity error, minor or major, it is still a continuity error and interferes with the movie's canonical place in the series. An example, as I said, is the presence of Trunks' sword which he lost for good against the Androids. It's like with Cooler's Revenge where Gohan has his Saiyan tail. That's a minor error, but is still one of the errors that puts it out of canon. Another thing is the fact that just after the conclusion of the Cell Games, Goku and King Kai expressed their disgust at Mr. Satan's lies, but on movie 9 (I've seen the Japanese version), Goku and King Kai still didn't seem to know Mr. Satan was the one believed to have defeated Cell, and Goku was surprised to hear it. And another thing: the fillers and all that (except for Garlic Jr.) are now considered canonical by most people who have only seen the anime and not read the manga, so that's what makes Bojack Unbound non-canon (my opinion). Jienum 10:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't say it isn't canon for minor errors. If you did that, then, by your logic, nothing after the point when Freeza used his Death Ball on Namek happened.--KojiDude (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's why people consider Coola's Revenge to be non-canon: for minor errors, such as Gohan's hairstyle and tail; Vegeta's absence when anyone can say that he simply did not turn up for the battle; Goku only transforming into a Super Saiyan when enraged beyond control by Coola's actions. Another thing: during the World Tournament Saga, the Z Warriors say that there hasn't been a tournament since the battle with Cell. And what do you mean by saying "If I say that, nothing happened after Freeza using the Death ball on Namek?" And I will not edit the Bojack Unbound page until this matter is settled, so don't panic, Koji. Jienum 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, after Freeza throws the Death Ball, he says Namek will explode in 5 minutes. It doesn't explode for 4 episodes in the anime and at least a few chapters in the manga. Thats a minor error, just like all the other millions of minoor errors through out DB/Z. By the way, Coola's Revenge has major plot holes. Goku not having Super Saiyan, Vegeta not being there and Coola's strength are the ones I'm talking about.--KojiDude (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then, how's this reason: Bojack was not created by Akira Toriyama and did not appear in the original manga. That's the reason Dragonball GT is considered non-canon. Bojack Unbound may very well fit into the continuity of the TV Series, but it still shouldn't be considered canonical, for the Akira Toriyama reason. Jienum 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bojack was not created by Akira Toriyama and did not appear in the original manga
 * You're contradicting yourself there, because you said before that Pikkon is canon, even though he didn't appear in the manga either.


 * I don't think who created it really has anything to do with it's level of canon. GT isn't considered canon because it's impossible for it to happen and has a wide range of plot holes (I think you forgot that alot of character designs for GT came from Toriyama).


 * Wether or not the movie is canon is POV and up to the reader, not us. We should just not mention it, or say something like "Wether or not the movie is canon is debatable".--KojiDude (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit: Also, reading over the discussion we've had, most of the points you make are based on your point of veiw, not facts, which helps with my suggestion of labeling it as POV.--KojiDude (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Pikkon is part of the TV Series and has come to be considered canon. I'm speaking of the Movie characters, not from the TV Series. And what I mentioned aren't necessarily from my own point of view. Saying that Trunks' destroyed sword returns in the movie was not from my POV. But then again, as you mentioned earlier, I also believe that it would be best to say that it is debatable whether or not the movie is canonical. Not only is it true, but it is also fair for everyone (not just us, but for all who disagree with us). Jienum 17:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph you put in is good, let's keep it like that. And I'd rather not explain what I meant about the POV and have another lengthy argument get started, especially scince it's rainng here and my computer would likley shut down in the midst of the discussion.--KojiDude (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Chuckle) We weren't really arguing, Koji. It was an exchange of opinions between two friendly editors about a movie's continuity. No harm done, debate come to a warm end. Jienum 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh...If a discussion goes on for more than an hour I call it an argument.--KojiDude (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, "argument" is too strong a word, I'd say. It was more like a debate. Jienum 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god, common guys! The whole new concept of "Canon" is not what everyone makes it out to be. The reason why this concept is being talked about for almost every show ever made now was because of Star Wars having a very detailed canon (by George Lucas)

Thing is that most companies besides the ever caring Lucas Arts, dont care about what is "canon" or not. It's just meant to be entertainment.

BUT I do agree that some shows mean alot to some ppl so its impostant to establish a timeline for some. Ok.

But the fact of the matter is this: Lots of DB fans talk about how Akira Toriyama's "original masterpiece" would be changed if things that he didnt write were to be added to the canon.

Guys...........Akira DOESNT CARE about Dragonball anymore. 1) He wanted to stop at Freeza  (His wife convinced him to continue on) 2) He wanted to stop at Cell, but was given creative control for Buu so he stopped after that.

3) Akira has said 3,403,345,454 times that he absolutely loves TOEI and what they did with the movies and anime. (Guys, this is the same guy who forgot who MASTER ROSHI was at the famous Tokyo convension 3 years ago). The guy considered everything canon...........or better said: he didnt look at that stuff like that at all. (he just watched it with his family)

4) Even said in the interview (and I can get the link for you in 5 minutes if anyone is interested.........I wouldnt mind at all)- that he "just didnt have the motivation to continue Dragonball and wanted to just move on." also adding (in same interview) about how he let TOEI continue the anime with GT and was "very excited with what they plan to do with the story" 

(who cares if it's canon or not. But the most pathetic part is how DB "fans" (fan boys really) like to say stuff like: a) "Akira didnt write it!!!!" (as if he ever said whatever he wrote was to be "official"......or even cared for that matter) OR b)or how "THE MAJORITY" or "EVERYONE" says that "it's not canon" or that "it's a plot hole" .................just to justify their beliefs. (where in fact, if "EVERYONE" agreed something was canon then you wouldnt have a) fans all over the net and b) the actual COMPANIES contradicting your statements.

all in all: get a life guys. trust me: Having Bojack unbound (which is DBZ at its best............fantastic movie or Movie 13 be part of the canon HELPS the series.......it doesnt hurt it. (at all)

- And as for "plot holes" (guys........Goku used the powerpole to go to the MOON in the original DB.........trust me, everything else makes sense compared to that)

 (for all the criticism that TOEI gets all the time>

Where does it say the exact moment Chi-Chi became pregnant? At the beginning of the Majin Boo Saga, probably, but whose to say how much time had passed since Cell's destruction? I have no idea where Trunks' sword came from, but...meh. They're really aren't that many plot-holes, apart from Trunks' sword suddenly appearing. Although, that tournament between Trunks and Tenshinhan was stupid, Trunks was like a million times stronger than Tenshinhan, why would he need to go Super Saiyan just to defeat Tenshinhan? Another thing, if Goku teleported to Earth, isn't that breaking the rules and shouldn't there be some kind of barrier against him returning to Earth? Confusing stuff. Anyway, this movie was great, thanks TOEI! Son Gohan (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all,Akira loves dragonball,second of all,this is canon,Bulma fix trunks sword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.176.128 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

error in article
guys, I just saw the movie again. Bojack isnt put into a "Star" but a Planet. And it is never said that he was locked there for thousands of years (this is said in the bojack article) but just "a long time ago"

Fair use rationale for Image:DBZ THE MOVIE NO. 9.jpg
Image:DBZ THE MOVIE NO. 9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dragon Ball Z: Bojack Unbound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016131337/http://corp.toei-anim.co.jp/english/film/dragon_ball_z_9_super_guy_in_t.php to http://corp.toei-anim.co.jp/english/film/dragon_ball_z_9_super_guy_in_t.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222015345/http://www.pojo.com:80/dragonball/EpisodeSummaries/movies/Movie9.shtml to http://www.pojo.com/dragonball/EpisodeSummaries/movies/Movie9.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)