So what was the point of Dragon Ball Z: Bio-Broly?

[deepeshvasadia]

I understand that he was a very popular movie character in the mid 90's along with Cooler, but Broly's third movie seemed (to me atleast) to be just a cash grab off a popular character. He already had a satisfying conclusion to his character in Broly Second Coming (basically coming back for revenge from the first movie but ultimately being finished off for good) but TOEI just makes this third movie to add "NOPE, HE'S BACK BUT AS A SCIENTIFIC CLONE!". Other than Trunks and Goten getting screentime (just like they did for the majority of Second Coming), this movie (IMO) shouldn't have been made.

 

[Let's Go Fearless!]

Like you said, cash grab. :toei

 

[Papasmurf]

It was just to make a quick buck off longstanding, prevalent Broly fanboyism as you both said.

 

[Captain Cadaver]

As said above, it was to simply bank on Broly's popularity and didn't even capitalise on that when any trait associated with his character is removed as soon as the slime covers him. However, I'd say the question of "What was the point?" and the answer that "It shouldn't have been made" can be applied just as much to the majority of other DBZ Movies when most of them added nothing of worth to the franchise. If anything, this is far more relevant to DBZ Movie 10 as at least Movie 11 offered a coherent explanation as to why Broly was brought back, unlike its predecessor which is founded on a plot hole.

 

[Pakl]

Broli was brought back because there was no sense to make a new movie villian when Goku and Vegeta can't appear due to their new forms not existing yet. And since Broli was popular so they brought him back.

Toriyama even notes in his manga notes that he gets consulted about what to do with movie 11 a month before movie 10 was released. Go and check out how the movies are made instead of quibbling for years

 

[Captain Cadaver]

Broli was brought back because there was no sense to make a new movie villian when Goku and Vegeta can't appear due to their new forms not existing yet.

That would have no bearing on the creation of a new villain, given by that logic Bojack wouldn't have been created as Goku's role in DBZ Movie 9 only amounts to a sucker-punch and a pep-talk. Koyama's statements made it evident he brought him back due to not being able to come up with a villain that had the same power and presence as Broly, of which Goku and Vegeta's power would have no bearing on.

And since Broli was popular so they brought him back.

This, however, is true and by far the most likely answer.

 

[Pakl]

Broli was brought back because there was no sense to make a new movie villian when Goku and Vegeta can't appear due to their new forms not existing yet.

That would have no bearing on the creation of a new villain, given by that logic Bojack wouldn't have been created as Goku's role in DBZ Movie 9 only amounts to a sucker-punch and a pep-talk. Koyama's statements made it evident he brought him back due to not being able to come up with a villain that had the same power and presence as Broly, of which Goku and Vegeta's power would have no bearing on.

And since Broli was popular so they brought him back.

This, however, is true and by far the most likely answer.

Broly was not brought up in movie 9 actually proves my point. Movie 9 was based on the Cell Games and there was a progression of the Z fighters power like in every movie. In movie 10 however, only Gohan who was weaker was used and the kids. There was no progression so they brought Broli back because he was popular. Why not bringing him back in movie 10? It was both because there was no progression in the stroy and because Broli was popular. In movie 11 he was brought back too brcause of the same reason as Bio Broli was a weakling anyway. Koyama also bluffs a lot about Broli when it comes to strength so I would not take that seriously. Bio Broli disproves it

 

[Captain Cadaver]

Broly was not brought up in movie 9 actually proves my point. Movie 9 was based on the Cell Games and there was a progression of the Z fighters power like in every movie.

That's an assumption based on theories about Movie 8's timeline, something which no official sources have verified (beyond video games placing it prior tot the Artificial Human battle, which simply isn't true).

In movie 10 however, only Gohan who was weaker was used and the kids. There was no progression so they brought Broli back because he was popular. Why not bringing him back in movie 10? It was both because there was no progression in the stroy and because Broli was popular.

It's because Broly was popular, yes, not because of a lack of progression. A lack of progression doesn't limit what villains can be used. If anything, it would add more reason to do more than bringing back a previous villain stronger than before.

In movie 11 he was brought back too brcause of the same reason as Bio Broli was a weakling anyway.

The same reason in that Broly was popular. If power progression was a reason, that would add more reason to use someone other than Broly as Goten and Trunks had become no stronger than someone who could stomp them without his strongest form and Bio-Broly presents so little traits he could easily be replaced with just a generic monster. Popularity was clearly the sole reason.

Koyama also bluffs a lot about Broli when it comes to strength so I would not take that seriously.

Official statements still hold more weight than assumptions, and Koyama saying he couldn't come up with the idea of a foe stronger than Broly is clearly not meant as a joke.

Bio Broli disproves it

Just like it disproves the idea that power progression is the primary factor in creating new villains.