Berk's Forumvine

things I would add:

some more rivalry between drago and valka, like maybe drago had been sending his dragons into the sanctuary to capture valkas ones. I would have liked to see a sence like that.

even though I still hated stoicks death, I wish he hadnt just instantly died. I would of prefered him to say his last words to hiccup and valka (something powerful and memorable) before dieing.

I also wish that the other dragon riders got some more screen time, aswell as the end battle with toothless and the bewilderbeast, which I wanted to involve hiccup flying on him

Assuming we're talking just changes rather than a total rewrite, I would just like to have seen someone, anyone, actually call Valka out on her bovine excrement. That was actually a bigger problem than Valka per se.

Although if we are talking total rewrites, then I would love to have seen DeBlois's original idea to have Valka be the antagonist (a sympathetic one, from my understanding, but the antagonist nonetheless). That would have been way more interesting, and presumably fixed the above problem quite nicely.

Oh well, such is life.

I would make the part of the movie that takes place after Stoick's death longer.
At first by adding a scene where Hiccup and Valka are showing the Scuttleclaws to the others, because the sudden change of mood from sad to funny was too fast.
Then the teens should have managed to get the attention of Drago's Bewilderbeast, so it would have made more sense that Hiccup was able to disenchant Toothless.
And I would have loved to see more of Toothless flying moves in a battle, either at Valka's sanctuary or during the last battle, because even though the Alpha Toothless was pretty cool, I missed his epic flying tricks he performed in the first movie.

Cartoon Freak

18 Aug 2014, 11:55

Although if we are talking total rewrites, then I would love to have seen DeBlois's original idea to have Valka be the antagonist (a sympathetic one, from my understanding, but the antagonist nonetheless). That would have been way more interesting, and presumably fixed the above problem quite nicely.

From what DeBlois has said, it looks like DreamWorks was concerned about offending mothers who might take negatively to the idea of a mother as an antagonist.

I agree, though, that it would have been far more interesting and original. DeBlois originally planned to save the conflict with Drago for the third film, which would have been more appropriate as it would have allowed the time to flesh out his character more.

It would also logically follow that Stoick's death and Hiccup/Toothless becoming chief/alpha would be postponed until the third film, which would help address some of the pacing issues present in the film.

Night Fury

30 Aug 2014, 19:01

Cartoon Freak

18 Aug 2014, 11:55

Although if we are talking total rewrites, then I would love to have seen DeBlois's original idea to have Valka be the antagonist (a sympathetic one, from my understanding, but the antagonist nonetheless). That would have been way more interesting, and presumably fixed the above problem quite nicely.

From what DeBlois has said, it looks like DreamWorks was concerned about offending mothers who might take negatively to the idea of a mother as an antagonist.

I agree, though, that it would have been far more interesting and original. DeBlois originally planned to save the conflict with Drago for the third film, which would have been more appropriate as it would have allowed the time to flesh out his character more.

It would also logically follow that Stoick's death and Hiccup/Toothless becoming chief/alpha would be postponed until the third film, which would help address some of the pacing issues present in the film.

The thing is, that kind of makes me angry about the whole movie, is that if Valka was Hiccup's father and Stoick was Hiccup's mother, people would be like, "What a dirtbag! How could he just abandon his wife with his baby to take care of all by herself? This is why all men are pigs!"
But since Valka is his mother and Stoick is the father, people are just like, "Oh, she was trying to protect him, and she even said she was sorry! Even though she hasn't been there for most of his life, she's such a good mom!"

It's kind of like reverse sexism, if you ask me.

I would have liked to see her be a villain, but not reveal it at first, mostly just seducing him with the idea of a life with only his mother and dragons and adventure, while genuinely loving and caring about him, but then showing her dark side when he turns her down, and revealing another ulterior motive, and something else happening, and even if she turned good at the end and felt guilty for her actions, I think it would have been more interesting. Drago needed a lot more development, I thought, and they probably should have waited and put him in the third film.

Also, maybe let Astrid be the hero for once, even in a small way. I would like to see her save Hiccup or someone else's life at least once.

RealHousewifeofBerk

30 Aug 2014, 19:33

Night Fury

30 Aug 2014, 19:01

Cartoon Freak

18 Aug 2014, 11:55

Although if we are talking total rewrites, then I would love to have seen DeBlois's original idea to have Valka be the antagonist (a sympathetic one, from my understanding, but the antagonist nonetheless). That would have been way more interesting, and presumably fixed the above problem quite nicely.

From what DeBlois has said, it looks like DreamWorks was concerned about offending mothers who might take negatively to the idea of a mother as an antagonist.

I agree, though, that it would have been far more interesting and original. DeBlois originally planned to save the conflict with Drago for the third film, which would have been more appropriate as it would have allowed the time to flesh out his character more.

It would also logically follow that Stoick's death and Hiccup/Toothless becoming chief/alpha would be postponed until the third film, which would help address some of the pacing issues present in the film.

The thing is, that kind of makes me angry about the whole movie, is that if Valka was Hiccup's father and Stoick was Hiccup's mother, people would be like, "What a dirtbag! How could he just abandon his wife with his baby to take care of all by herself? This is why all men are pigs!"
But since Valka is his mother and Stoick is the father, people are just like, "Oh, she was trying to protect him, and she even said she was sorry! Even though she hasn't been there for most of his life, she's such a good mom!"

It's kind of like reverse sexism, if you ask me.

I would have liked to see her be a villain, but not reveal it at first, mostly just seducing him with the idea of a life with only his mother and dragons and adventure, while genuinely loving and caring about him, but then showing her dark side when he turns her down, and revealing another ulterior motive, and something else happening, and even if she turned good at the end and felt guilty for her actions, I think it would have been more interesting. Drago needed a lot more development, I thought, and they probably should have waited and put him in the third film.

Also, maybe let Astrid be the hero for once, even in a small way. I would like to see her save Hiccup or someone else's life at least once.

I take a lot of issues with this comment honestly. For the record, most people that I've seen critique the film don't actually accept Valka's excuse for not coming back. If you bring it up to anyone most people wouldn't disagree that it was kind of a weak point for the film. If the roles were reversed it would be no different. Pretty much nobody thinks Valka is a "good mom". Not to mention the fact that she apologized to him and recognized that she was wrong for not coming back and is now making an actual effort to be a part of hiccup's life.

Also, you are really opening a can of worms here with this whole """"""reverse sexism"""""" thing. Can we not.

Eret

30 Aug 2014, 20:46

RealHousewifeofBerk

30 Aug 2014, 19:33

Night Fury

30 Aug 2014, 19:01

From what DeBlois has said, it looks like DreamWorks was concerned about offending mothers who might take negatively to the idea of a mother as an antagonist.

I agree, though, that it would have been far more interesting and original. DeBlois originally planned to save the conflict with Drago for the third film, which would have been more appropriate as it would have allowed the time to flesh out his character more.

It would also logically follow that Stoick's death and Hiccup/Toothless becoming chief/alpha would be postponed until the third film, which would help address some of the pacing issues present in the film.

The thing is, that kind of makes me angry about the whole movie, is that if Valka was Hiccup's father and Stoick was Hiccup's mother, people would be like, "What a dirtbag! How could he just abandon his wife with his baby to take care of all by herself? This is why all men are pigs!"
But since Valka is his mother and Stoick is the father, people are just like, "Oh, she was trying to protect him, and she even said she was sorry! Even though she hasn't been there for most of his life, she's such a good mom!"

It's kind of like reverse sexism, if you ask me.

I would have liked to see her be a villain, but not reveal it at first, mostly just seducing him with the idea of a life with only his mother and dragons and adventure, while genuinely loving and caring about him, but then showing her dark side when he turns her down, and revealing another ulterior motive, and something else happening, and even if she turned good at the end and felt guilty for her actions, I think it would have been more interesting. Drago needed a lot more development, I thought, and they probably should have waited and put him in the third film.

Also, maybe let Astrid be the hero for once, even in a small way. I would like to see her save Hiccup or someone else's life at least once.

I take a lot of issues with this comment honestly. For the record, most people that I've seen critique the film don't actually accept Valka's excuse for not coming back. If you bring it up to anyone most people wouldn't disagree that it was kind of a weak point for the film. If the roles were reversed it would be no different. Pretty much nobody thinks Valka is a "good mom". Not to mention the fact that she apologized to him and recognized that she was wrong for not coming back and is now making an actual effort to be a part of hiccup's life.

Also, you are really opening a can of worms here with this whole """"""reverse sexism"""""" thing. Can we not.

Good point. I probably should have said that, if she were male, less people would have liked him, and he probably would have been more hated. Hiccup at least should have hesitated a little bit before accepting her apology and trusting her. There needed to be more tension, I thought.
And I know they probably wanted a happier ending to make up for the horrifyingly tragic middle part, but I think it was kind of too happy. Other than the statue they build, no one seems to care at all about Stoick's death.

RealHousewifeofBerk

30 Aug 2014, 22:17

Eret

30 Aug 2014, 20:46

I take a lot of issues with this comment honestly. For the record, most people that I've seen critique the film don't actually accept Valka's excuse for not coming back. If you bring it up to anyone most people wouldn't disagree that it was kind of a weak point for the film. If the roles were reversed it would be no different. Pretty much nobody thinks Valka is a "good mom". Not to mention the fact that she apologized to him and recognized that she was wrong for not coming back and is now making an actual effort to be a part of hiccup's life.

Also, you are really opening a can of worms here with this whole """"""reverse sexism"""""" thing. Can we not.

Good point. I probably should have said that, if she were male, less people would have liked him, and he probably would have been more hated. Hiccup at least should have hesitated a little bit before accepting her apology and trusting her. There needed to be more tension, I thought.
And I know they probably wanted a happier ending to make up for the horrifyingly tragic middle part, but I think it was kind of too happy. Other than the statue they build, no one seems to care at all about Stoick's death.

It would have been more realistic if Hiccup had harbored at least a little hesitation before accepting her, but that would have gone in to yet another side plot that the movie really didn't need. I'm not going to disagree though that it would have probably been better, more interesting, and more well-paced overall if Valka was the villain, and they could have explored that tension between hiccup and her, but it almost seems unfair to complain about it since it wasn't dean or the story team's fault that they couldn't go that direction. As a result, they ended up needing a completely separate villain and a whole other side plot along with him, and the movie became too muddled, and there was no time or need for hiccup/valka angst. Or time for extra mourning over Stoick. The same would have been true if Stoick and Valka had switched roles. Gender has nothing to do with this. This is not a sexism issue.

Night Fury

30 Aug 2014, 19:01

Cartoon Freak

18 Aug 2014, 11:55

Although if we are talking total rewrites, then I would love to have seen DeBlois's original idea to have Valka be the antagonist (a sympathetic one, from my understanding, but the antagonist nonetheless). That would have been way more interesting, and presumably fixed the above problem quite nicely.

From what DeBlois has said, it looks like DreamWorks was concerned about offending mothers who might take negatively to the idea of a mother as an antagonist.

I agree, though, that it would have been far more interesting and original. DeBlois originally planned to save the conflict with Drago for the third film, which would have been more appropriate as it would have allowed the time to flesh out his character more.

It would also logically follow that Stoick's death and Hiccup/Toothless becoming chief/alpha would be postponed until the third film, which would help address some of the pacing issues present in the film.

And it'd be a reference to the books... Which is nice. Not that Val is a major antigua nits in the books but... UGH if anyone has read ten they know what I mean... Although I adore her now...

I would've loved it if Eret's fort's scene wasn't deleted.