Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| New interview with Dean DeBlois | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 08 Nov 2014, 03:53 (8862 Views) | |
| Demonwolf002 | 08 Nov 2014, 03:53 Post #11 |
Lone Dragon
|
Hmm I really need to sit down and take a look at the storyboards now since I've actually seen the movie. All good points and there's not to much more that I can honestly say on it. Other than using How to Train Your Dragon as the example. I should have been specific at that point and I wasn't that's my fault. Although again coming from someone who hasn't seen the storyboards(this more than likely is/could be answered by them and could change my opinion as well). I feel that while the idea and principle are the same the execution may not have been, and with that said that can/could change how things might be perceived at least in some circumstances. Admittedly this more than likely wouldn't really affect anything all that major nor does/could it disqualify it as an example. One other small thing, and this still falls under my fault for not being specific. That I would like to address is the "indirect" action and consequence. While Stoick isn't a threat to the Bewilderbeast he could be perceived as a threat to Valka. Which may or may not have any influence over the Bwilderbeats's actions in regards to her. But if Cloudjumper saw him as a threat and jumped in then that could insight the Bwilderbeast to protect Cloudjumper. Again depending on how much he cares about either of them. Which for Cloudjumpers sake has to be a little bit considering the Bewilderbeast is the "king" of the dragons. This all still falls under the "spiral out of control" web though, and therefore still something that kids could easily understand. I just wanted to bring up the clarifications on my part. Lastly I don't know if I ever have, but I'm going to now. Thank you! Like seriously thank you I really enjoy reading and having discussion like this. I'm sure I'm not the best possible person to have it with, but the take away for me is just great. So thank you for indulging me. 
|
|
See you in the skies Dragon Rider! The Dragon Root:Thing what I wrote. Is Toothless Evil? :Me possibly being crazy, but fun. The BerkCast The HTTYD podcast, you should listen. | |
| DarthBacon | 08 Nov 2014, 06:26 Post #12 |
Gronckle
|
The current movie is as good as the original storyboard for me actually, except for the baby dragons scene. People are always going to complain about any movie, and its actually quite incredible that Dean has managed to satisfy every one in the fandom. If Valka had been the intended villian, with her bewilderbeast as the main antagonist, how long do you think it would have taken for people to simply say that HTTYD 2 is a mere rehash of HTTYD, with Valka instead of Stoick, and her bewilderbeast instead of the red death? Also, the current script has showed enormous amount of character development for both Hiccup and Toothless. I don't think the original story could have done that. Considering the fact that the relationship between them is the heart of this franchise, the change to the story is for the better. |
  
| |
| Cartoon Freak | 08 Nov 2014, 11:06 Post #13 |
Deadly Nadder
|
Given that, by all accounts, the execution would have been very different, I don't think many people would have minded. It would have been less of a rehash and more like the "You are a toy!" bits in the first two Toy Story movies, looking at the same basic issue from two very different viewpoints. Besides, it's not like HTTYD is a very original film, either. It's the execution that makes it work. 1. Obvious question: why couldn't the original story have done that character development? If nothing else, DeBlois would actually have gained a good amount of time for that by not having to give Drago much screentime. 2. The character development for Hiccup and Toothless could easily have been done without the dead weight that is Valka. Seriously, Valka as is contributes nothing to the story that couldn't have been done with a non-parent crazy dragon lady, and actually causes a lot of harm not only to HTTYD 2, but to the first film as well. |
|
Number of times I've watched the trailer: 18. My pet peeve: people who refer to complete strangers by their first name. The correct ways to refer to a "John Smith" whom you have never met are Smith, Mr Smith, or John Smith. Not "John". He's not your buddy. | |
| DarthBacon | 08 Nov 2014, 13:48 Post #14 |
|
Gronckle
|
Keeping Toothless's character arc in the current version in mind, what could have happened in the original script that can beat this? I'm darn sure Toothless wouldn't have killed Stoick if Valka had been the intended antagonist. This movie actually gave much more importance to Toothless than I thought they would initially. Toothless's redemption is much more significant and adds much more value to the franchise than any sort of redemption to Valka. And yeah, i agree. Valka was pretty much useless after the battle. But introducing her simply made what Hiccup did in the first movie much more significant. |
|
| |
| Cartoon Freak | 08 Nov 2014, 22:55 Post #15 |
|
Deadly Nadder
|
I think you may actually have everything backwards here.There is no redemption for Toothless in the movie, because there's nothing he needs to be redeemed for. He was not in control of his actions when he killed Stoick, and thus can in no way be held responsible for them. The movie makes this very clear (a little too clear, but better that than not clear enough, I suppose). Heck, there's actually more for Toothless to be redeemed for in the original story. Assuming Hiccup and Valka's initial confrontation remained largely unchanged (probable), then it can be viewed as Toothless' fault, to an extent, that Hiccup got kidnapped in the first place. If he had had acted more quickly, he would have been able to dodge that attack, thus protecting Hiccup. If Hiccup had not been kidnapped, then Valka would not have been in a position to do all the bad things she winds up doing in the original story. You definitely have this completely backwards. In the first movie taken purely on its own, Hiccup's befriending of Toothless goes completely against everything he has ever known: society, upbringing, and genetics. It is thus an entirely conscious choice to save Toothless, and all the more incredible for it. The movie itself emphasises the difference between "couldn't kill a dragon" and "wouldn't kill a dragon", with the latter being superior in every way. Not only is the latter a far more courageous act, it's a far more moral one as well, since he can be sure that he was acting on his own free will, rather than under some unseen force, like, oh say, genetics. Bearing the second film in mind as well, Hiccup's "choice" just becomes one half of his genetic material overriding the other. At best, the choice becomes less noteworthy, because he's not rebelling against everything he knows. At worst, it vanishes completely. The latter is what the film actually states in the following exchange (dialogue is approximate, since I haven't seen the film in a while, but I'm very sure about the important words): Valka: I couldn't kill a dragon. Hiccup: Yeah, runs in the family. That, along with many other lines of dialogue, makes it clear that Hiccup is just taking after his mother in this regard. This is a lot less interesting and a lot less heroic. Now to be fair, this would have been the case in the original story as well, but at least then we would have gotten some good drama out of Valka being Hiccup's mother. As things stand, the movie would have been a lot better if she had just been some crazy dragon lady vigilante unrelated to Hiccup. She could have then been an example of what Hiccup could become (heck, DeBlois might even have been willing to make her actually feral if there wasn't the mother angle), without in any way cheapening what he did in the first film. Instead, DeBlois seemed utterly unwilling or unable to kill his darlings, and instead, we wound up with the worst character in the movies to date. Drago may have been bland, but at least he didn't make any other characters worse. |
|
Number of times I've watched the trailer: 18. My pet peeve: people who refer to complete strangers by their first name. The correct ways to refer to a "John Smith" whom you have never met are Smith, Mr Smith, or John Smith. Not "John". He's not your buddy. | |
| DarthBacon | 08 Nov 2014, 23:38 Post #16 |
|
Gronckle
|
Well, you and me have vastly different opinions on this. When Hiccup and Toothless were caught, he could have just simply run away like Valka, and Toothless wouldn't have been caught, and the war between the vikings and the dragons would have continued. Valka was afraid to trust that people would change, and she believed that no one in Berk would change, and so she just simply left. Hiccup could have done the same. He could have just flew off with Toothless. But, he did not do that. This is what makes what Hiccup did in the 1st movie much more significant. He risked everything to prove his father and his tribe that they were wrong. He could've even been killed by Hookfang in the ring, but still he was willing to take the risk for his friend, and for his belief, and ended up in stopping the war, something which Valka could have done, but which she did not. This is why introducing Valka as a flawed character gives so many boosts to Hiccup's character. And about Toothless, what could have possibly happened in the original script that could have given him this much importance? If they had persisted with the original, Toothless simply would have been a comic relief, and very much like a transport for Hiccup ( which he is, for almost half the movie. But after the battle, the sole focus is Toothless. And that's why this script is as good as the original). |
|
| |
| Cartoon Freak | 09 Nov 2014, 01:07 Post #17 |
|
Deadly Nadder
|
Where to begin with the problems with this? 1. Valka did not simply leave She was kidnapped by Cloudjumper (what is it with this movie and portraying kidnapping as a good thing?), and then didn't return. That is different, and should be taken on its own merits and problems. In that regard: 2. Valka not returning is never treated as a morally wrong action by any of the other characters, so it does approximately zip to portray her as a flawed character. 3. Hiccup was entirely willing to leave at the first sign of legitimate trouble, and it's only running into Astrid and the ensuing chaos (in which he doesn't exactly appear to be thinking straight) that stops him. After all of that, he's basically got two choices. The first is, of course, the one he takes: trying to convince the village that they can live in peace with dragons. The second is, of course, to fly away, but then Astrid has made it quite clear that she's going to tell Stoick about the nest, and between the collected dragon-fighting wits of the village, they would figure out pretty easily that only a dragon could find the nest. That's worse than anything that would have happened from Hiccup simply failing to convince the village.* A choice between probable failure with bad consequences or certain failure with terrible consequences is not really a choice. If Hiccup was in Valka's position, he would have done the same thing. It was basically luck that got him into a situation where there were better things to be done. *To be more precise, it would be worse than anything that Hiccup could foresee. True, the situation he wound up in from trying to convince the village wound up with Toothless headed to all-but-certain death as well as most of the vikings, but Hiccup could not have foreseen that. The whole reason he's able to train Toothless in the first place is because Toothless got stuck in the cove, and that's exactly where Hiccup left him: safe and out of the way. 1. Let's just take a look at what Toothless actually does in the movie, shall we? First two acts: comic relief and transport. No agency for Toothless, and would easily have worked with the original story. Act two/three break (approximately): gets brainwashed, and kills Stoick, an act for which he has no agency, and that really means nothing a few minutes after the scene beyond "Stoick is dead" (which could have been done any number of other ways). Oh, and it could have been done in the original story as well. Act three: Asskicking. To be fair, it was awesome, but it could easily have been done (and almost certainly was) in the original story. In short, nothing that couldn't have been done in the original story. 2. Since when is changing protagonists two-thirds of the way through the movie a sign of a good script? That's a sign of a terrible script. Well, unless you're Alfred Hitchcock, but trying to emulate the brilliance of Psycho is just a bit beyond most screenwriters and directors. Seriously, you're actually making me like HTTYD 2 less by pointing out flaws that I'd subconsciously tried to bury. I can only assume that you're a master of reverse psychology. |
|
Number of times I've watched the trailer: 18. My pet peeve: people who refer to complete strangers by their first name. The correct ways to refer to a "John Smith" whom you have never met are Smith, Mr Smith, or John Smith. Not "John". He's not your buddy. | |
| DarthBacon | 09 Nov 2014, 08:23 Post #18 |
|
Gronckle
|
Oh well, to each his own opinion. I believe introducing Valka made Hiccup a better hero, and I'm fine with that. I believe this was also Dean's intention behind introducing Valka. Valka was away for 20 years. You think she couldn't have come back? She had the choice after she was kidnapped, but she didn't. In the end, does it really matter? Hiccup bought peace between the dragons and the vikings,not Valka. Valka had a similar situation, but she did not. That's all. This alone makes what Hiccup did in the 1st film better and more worthy. And wait, you really think Toothless would have had the same story arc in the original script? Toothless would have never killed Stoick off then. Making Valka order Toothless to kill Stoick or Hiccup off is something no director would even dare going to. The entire 3rd act is about Hiccup forgiving Toothless and Toothless finding himself and challenging the alpha. The original story would have had no room to the Hiccup-Toothless relationship. It had much more to do with Hiccup-Valka. Oh, trust me. I have a lot of problems with HTTYD 2. But I'm sure people would have had problems with the original script too. |
|
| |
| Cartoon Freak | 09 Nov 2014, 09:04 Post #19 |
|
Deadly Nadder
|
True, but I'm pretty sure I would have had far fewer problems (and far smaller problems) with the original story than I do with the finished product. I would just like to add that, for better or for worse, I'm probably the most critical person you'll find on this forum. I'm certainly in the top 10%. Okay, I'm not saying that what Valka did wasn't wrong (though that is what everyone in the movie is basically saying, so maybe I should agree with people and aid my argument). I'm just saying that Hiccup would have run away if Astrid hadn't forced his hand (off topic: that is actually a brilliant part of the movie that did not occur to me until recently) and thus it is fair to say that Valka would have been able to bring about peace between vikings and dragons if someone had similarly forced her hand. Let me put it this way: when Hiccup is preparing to fly away with Toothless, does he really sound like a guy who believes that peace between vikings and humans is actually possible? Okay, I'm going to tell you one sad little fact: the fact that it's Toothless who kills Stoick is basically meaningless. This is because Toothless is not in control of his actions. The movie is very clear about this. Since he's not in control, it's not his fault. Therefore, there is nothing to be forgiven for, and nothing that Toothless needs to redeem himself for. The movie seems to be entirely self-aware of this, since Hiccup forgives Toothless basically as soon as he's gone anyway. That's basically the sum total of characterisation that comes from that point (as opposed to any other way of Stoick dying): Hiccup realising, "Hang on, it's stupid of me to blame my friend for being mind-controlled." Yeah, that ain't exactly Hamlet. This is may be best illustrated by rewriting the final story a little: Let's go back to Stoick and Drago fighting. Let's also say that at this point, Drago's Bewilderbeast has killed Valka's one. The evil Bewilderbeast is taking control of the other dragons, but Toothless seems immune. Seeing the problem, Hiccup theorises that if they could stop Drago, they could stop the Bewilderbeast. Acting largely by himself (as he is able to do to an extent), Toothless dives towards Drago and Stoick as they are locked in combat. Hiccup says, "No!", but Toothless fires off a blast into the combat. Drago and Stoick tussle in such a way that Stoick takes the full force of the blast. Cue sad scene of Hiccup crying over Stoick's body, and telling Toothless to get away. Toothless, realising what he did, and seeing that his best friend now hates him, is emotionally distraught. Said emotions weaken his will, leaving him vulnerable to he Bewilderbeast's mind control. Toothless is brainwashed, Drago rides away on him, and the rest of the film basically proceeds as is. When Hiccup is getting through to Toothless, he's realising that his friend actually forgives him for something (because there's something to actually forgive), and that gives him the strength to resist the Bewilderbeast's mind control. Do you see why this version actually hits those character development points, and thus why the version we got doesn't? Within this version, Toothless actually makes a tragic mistake, one that he has to redeem himself for. Hiccup actually has something to hate Toothless over for more than the two minutes it takes him to realise that he's being a complete and utter idiot. With all of this in place, the scene is set for an actual reconciliation, rather than just, "You are cured because friendship is magic!" Actually, no, that's really insulting: My Little Pony is way better at explaining things than that section of the movie. Once again, your powers of reverse psychology amaze me. And now, with the realisation that I can create better plots than professional writers, I now have the confidence to get back to my NaNoWriMo novel. |
|
Number of times I've watched the trailer: 18. My pet peeve: people who refer to complete strangers by their first name. The correct ways to refer to a "John Smith" whom you have never met are Smith, Mr Smith, or John Smith. Not "John". He's not your buddy. | |
| DarthBacon | 09 Nov 2014, 09:49 Post #20 |
|
Gronckle
|
I'm just going to say this. You sound very much like me when I saw HTTYD 2 first. I came out thinking that it was not even half as good as HTTYD. But then, I came across this blog. toothlessnightfury.blogspot.in This is one of the best blogs for HTTYD i have come across. Trust me, this blog will change your opinion about the events of the sequel for the better. On a completely unrelated note, what is NanoWriMo? |
|
| |
| Users browsing this forum:
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [bot], Google [Bot] and 23 guests
|
|
| Print view | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · How to Train Your Dragon 2 · Next Topic » |
| Members · Contact us · Delete cookies | It is currently 16 Jun 2025, 14:40 |