They aren't crazy because that was his intent.
But....Kishimoto said in an interview that they were not happy. He said that there is no reason why they are together, Sakura is a drug addict, and they could get a divorce. How is this even an argument on this?
And I am not even talking about Sasuke not being home at all, Sasuke not even being able to touch his wife, Sakura looking miserable and upset whenever their relationship is called into questions, and even Naruto telling Sasuke "Would it kill you to go home everyone once and a while?"
Not even looking at story visual, but story elements.
Now is NH unhappy? That one is debatable. However, while I can't say on what Kishimoto thinks because he hasnm't said either way unlike SS, it is apparenty in Gaiden that Naruto seems to have a brighter disposition around Salad and Sakura than he does his own kids and family....so what does that tell?
If we are going to play the intent game, then why don't we do this with every story element? What was the intent with Sakura confession? What was the intent of Sasuke speech in chapter 693? What was the intent of Sasuke and Naruto holding hands at the end with their blood? What was the intent of Minato making note of Sakura and how she was like Kushina? What was the intent of the entire story? Do you really accept that Kishimoto's intent was an entire red herring?
Just the fact that we argue intent is enough for me to say "There is something wrong here" especially with the fandom in such disarray
gt isn't canon, if it was supreme kai and kibito would be fused forever, they were unfused in super. there are other inconsistencies too. he considers it more of a what if, he respects it unlike his hate for dragon ball evolution.
Which is what I said. Did you even read the post in it's entirely or any of the other posts I made around that one?
I mean, I even brought up the fact that there are different timeline in the DBZ story thanks toTtrunks who changed it. You have one timeline where Goku died of a heart disease and almost all the Z fighters were killed except for Gohan and Trunks was from that one. You have a timeline where Trunks defeated the androids, cell killed trunks and took his time machine, and you have two more timelines with the one we are on now and another one with a different outcome of Cell's original timeline. Why couldn't GT be one of these? You can also have Super be the timeline A with Trunks and the rest being B,C,D,E.
Did you not understand this?
I disagree with you on the death battle being accurate with goku vs superman, they were biased towards it and are superman fans, not dbz fans, but I don't care who wins that fight, I just find it pointless and point out the inconsistencies. I also disagree with you on your nitpicks on super right now. not gonna get into any of that though because don't want to have another argument with you again.
I wasn't even talking about the Death battle at all, so why are you even bringing it up? All I mentioned was the timeline in DBZ can be seen something similar to the timelines in DC and could explain alot of things. Since Trunks proved this in the series itself I would like to think this is the case. GT is canon, but it is of a different timeline.
You say you don't want to argue about it and yet you're the one that brought it up. You say you don't care who won, but you're the one that brought it up. Obviously, you have some major issues with it all and I can see you're a very much Pro-Goku, Anti-Superman, Pro-Goku should have won crowd. Wiz and
Whiz and Boomstick have said in a discussion that they are Goku fans all the way. That they find Superman boring and don't like him at all. Like many other DBZ fanboys. they said he is too OP. Yet, you want to claim something that they said the opposite of.
Wizard Magazine said that Goku would beat Superman because Superman would die from a fall from orbit. Do you think that is not biased or do you think that is spot on? Even though Superman has survived being thrown from orbit . "Oh look, he stood up moments later being more pissed off than hurt."
Again, you're the one bringing this up. I made the Superman Q and A thread for a reason so go there if you want facts and traits. So what if I am nitpicking Super apart. You're nitpicking Superman apart even right now and I don't give a kitten.
I will say this one last time
It doesn't matter about the calculations. Goku and Superman do not fit the same mold. Goku has NEVER been invinicble. His entire character structure is breaking limits and overcoming his own limitations through training and hardwork. Superman is not that same type of hero. Superman is a type of hero that who wins by showing that he is better than the villains he fights. He is suppsoed to the show the best we can be. It is not whether or not he loses a fight, but whether he is doing the right thing. Superman will always find a way to win. He has been around for 75+ years.
A man who can overcome any limit vs a man who has no limits in the first place. End of story.
For the record, I believe Saitama can beat Goku because of the same concept. Saitama is meant to be limitless regardless if he is a satire or not. The idea is is that Saitama is meant to beat any opposition thrown at him. End of story. I am sorry you don't accept this and you don't have to. You can continue to believe Goku is the strongest character to have ever been made...that's fine. I am not gonna change your opinion just like you can't change mine. We are going to keep going in circles.The only difference now is that I don't care anymore, but you do. So either find your own answers or shut up. I am done with the arguing, but you keep bringing it up.
I think Superman can beat Goku without breaking a sweat, you think Goku can beat Superman without breaking a sweat. If that is what helps you sleep at night, fine.
Just stop already.
Edited by James S Cassidy, 17 November 2017 - 07:13 PM.
