Do you think Daima might have been better off as a new IP?

Or your comprehension skills are lacking but if you don’t get it; I don’t think that’s my problem. A standalone spinoff that retcons the core source material and I’m not talking about minor retcons like those in DBZ—which, btw, you didn’t even mention. Unless Toei makes an official statement, what you’re saying doesn’t hold up and you’ll just have the accept that it’s in limbo.

First off, the whole “your definition of canon and retcons” bit—nice try, but canon isn’t some nebulous concept we get to redefine at will. It’s about consistency within the established narrative. If Daima introduces elements that contradict prior material without logical integration, that’s a retcon issue. Comparing it to retcons in Z doesn’t suddenly make those contradictions valid—it just points out that inconsistencies exist elsewhere too, which… doesn’t actually defend Daima.

Secondly, you didn’t actually provide any counterarguments. How does Daima justify its retcons in a way that Z doesn’t? If you’re gonna mock someone for their supposed lack of reasoning, at least back it up with more than snark.

Lastly, Some people just care about the integrity of storytelling—radical concept, I know. So, instead of projecting, maybe try addressing their points directly instead of doubling down on condescension.

But it’s true tho; you can’t retcon the source and be canon 😂


At least those retcons are canon. (DBZ) Super is a whole nother topic that has nothing to do with DB, DBZ, or GT so I’m not touching that here. Daima isn’t canon and there’s nothing you can do about it but kick rocks and wait for an official statement from toriyama.

That’s a gross oversimplification of how “canon” works, especially in a franchise like Dragon Ball. Canon isn’t just about Toriyama writing something—it’s about how that material interacts with and respects the established continuity. The issue arises when new material contradicts, overwrites, or retroactively changes previously established rules or events. If Toriyama himself admits he forgets details, doesn’t that increase the potential for retcons and inconsistencies? You’re proving my point here.

Retcons change or overwrite previously established continuity. If a non-canon material introduces a concept and later a canon work incorporates it but changes its context, it’s still a retcon for the franchise as a whole. For example, DBS: Broly reworked Broly’s entire origin and context. Yes, the old movies weren’t canon, but the character and events still existed within the franchise’s broader narrative identity. It’s a meta-retcon if you want to be pedantic, but it still functions as one.

Non-canon material can still influence the perception of canon when it’s reintroduced in a different form. For example, Bardock’s story has been retooled multiple times (original special, Dragon Ball Minus, and then DBS: Broly). Each iteration changes elements of the original, creating inconsistencies in how we’re supposed to view Bardock as a character. The label of “canon” doesn’t erase the history of how these narratives evolved or interacted.

let’s not gloss over the fact that I’ve actually provided a framework for my argument: Daima’s retcons are more egregious because they retroactively reframe critical narrative stakes and themes, unlike earlier DBZ retcons, which mostly expanded on or clarified concepts. Daima introduces a regressive premise (turning characters into children) that undermines established stakes, making it harder to reconcile with the story’s overall progression. Retcons in DBZ (e.g., the introduction of Saiyan heritage or Namekian lore) worked to enhance the narrative, not trivialize it.

“You made the claim that Daima retcons are worse than DBZ retcons yet hasn’t provided any examples.”

Here’s one: DBZ’s retcon of Goku’s origin (from random strong kid to Saiyan warrior) worked because it elevated the stakes and added depth to his character. In contrast, Daima’s premise (a sudden de-aging of the cast) undermines the growth and development we’ve seen over decades. The narrative justification for this change seems flimsy at best, serving more as a gimmick than a meaningful progression of the story.

I don’t need to reduce my argument to personal taste when I can explain why the retcons in Daima feel more disruptive to the overall narrative integrity of Dragon Ball. This isn’t about whether I “like” Daima—it’s about whether its changes serve the story in a cohesive and compelling way.

Sure, Toriyama wrote it, but authorial intent doesn’t always equal good storytelling. The question isn’t “Did Toriyama write this?” but “Does this fit with the world he created without undermining its established themes and stakes?” Being the creator doesn’t automatically shield his work from criticism, especially when it introduces ideas that feel at odds with the franchise’s core identity.

The irony is strong here, given how I’ve laid out clear distinctions and examples while your response is primarily opinion-based with no actual counterpoints. You’re asking for “sources” about a fictional universe that we’re both engaging with through subjective interpretation. If we’re going to call for citations, maybe we both need to acknowledge the futility of demanding academic rigor in a Dragon Ball debate.

TL;DR Even if I were wrong, I’m still operating on a stronger foundation than you are. Or in case you can’t understand what saying here too, I simplified it in layman’s terms: let’s say I’m wrong; you’re just as wrong but the difference is you can’t back up anything you said and I can.

That’s a gross oversimplification of how “canon” works, especially in a franchise like Dragon Ball. Canon isn’t just about Toriyama writing something—it’s about how that material interacts with and respects the established continuity. The issue arises when new material contradicts, overwrites, or retroactively changes previously established rules or events. If Toriyama himself admits he forgets details, doesn’t that increase the potential for retcons and inconsistencies? You’re proving my point here.

Retcons change or overwrite previously established continuity. If a non-canon material introduces a concept and later a canon work incorporates it but changes its context, it’s still a retcon for the franchise as a whole. For example, DBS: Broly reworked Broly’s entire origin and context. Yes, the old movies weren’t canon, but the character and events still existed within the franchise’s broader narrative identity. It’s a meta-retcon if you want to be pedantic, but it still functions as one.

Non-canon material can still influence the perception of canon when it’s reintroduced in a different form. For example, Bardock’s story has been retooled multiple times (original special, Dragon Ball Minus, and then DBS: Broly). Each iteration changes elements of the original, creating inconsistencies in how we’re supposed to view Bardock as a character. The label of “canon” doesn’t erase the history of how these narratives evolved or interacted.

let’s not gloss over the fact that I’ve actually provided a framework for my argument: Daima’s retcons are more egregious because they retroactively reframe critical narrative stakes and themes, unlike earlier DBZ retcons, which mostly expanded on or clarified concepts. Daima introduces a regressive premise (turning characters into children) that undermines established stakes, making it harder to reconcile with the story’s overall progression. Retcons in DBZ (e.g., the introduction of Saiyan heritage or Namekian lore) worked to enhance the narrative, not trivialize it.

“You made the claim that Daima retcons are worse than DBZ retcons yet hasn’t provided any examples.”

Here’s one: DBZ’s retcon of Goku’s origin (from random strong kid to Saiyan warrior) worked because it elevated the stakes and added depth to his character. In contrast, Daima’s premise (a sudden de-aging of the cast) undermines the growth and development we’ve seen over decades. The narrative justification for this change seems flimsy at best, serving more as a gimmick than a meaningful progression of the story.

I don’t need to reduce my argument to personal taste when I can explain why the retcons in Daima feel more disruptive to the overall narrative integrity of Dragon Ball. This isn’t about whether I “like” Daima—it’s about whether its changes serve the story in a cohesive and compelling way.

Sure, Toriyama wrote it, but authorial intent doesn’t always equal good storytelling. The question isn’t “Did Toriyama write this?” but “Does this fit with the world he created without undermining its established themes and stakes?” Being the creator doesn’t automatically shield his work from criticism, especially when it introduces ideas that feel at odds with the franchise’s core identity.

The irony is strong here, given how I’ve laid out clear distinctions and examples while your response is primarily opinion-based with no actual counterpoints. You’re asking for “sources” about a fictional universe that we’re both engaging with through subjective interpretation. If we’re going to call for citations, maybe we both need to acknowledge the futility of demanding academic rigor in a Dragon Ball debate.

TL;DR Even if I were wrong, I’m still operating on a stronger foundation than you are. Or in case you can’t understand what saying here too, I simplified it in layman’s terms: let’s say I’m wrong; you’re just as wrong but the difference is you can’t back up anything you said and I can.

Hate to break it to you, Captain Context Clues, but the problem wasn’t my definition—it’s your selective comprehension.

The Dragonballs grant wishes, sure, but you’re conveniently skipping over the how and why that particular wish causes contradictions within established rules. Retcons aren’t just about outright denial—they can also stem from bending existing mechanics to fit a narrative shift. So while you’re busy congratulating yourself for solving a ‘problem’ that didn’t exist, the rest of us are over here actually discussing the implications.

But hey, take care! Enjoy your mic drop—it’s a shame the microphone wasn’t even turned on.

indeed he has a misunderstanding and is trying to redefine what retcon means or is.

often retcon word is misused to vet one's own frustration for the lack of control of how things plays out being different from what they wish it were.

And yet it’s worked thus far and gone full circle.