Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| New interview with Dean DeBlois | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 09 Nov 2014, 10:43 (4412 Views) | |
| Cartoon Freak | 09 Nov 2014, 10:43 Post #21 |
Deadly Nadder
|
Okay, I'm not going to do a total takedown of this until I've watched the movie again to look at the details, but I'm pretty sure this person is overanalysing to the extreme. On a skim through, he or she is putting ideas into the movie that simply aren't there. The reasoning is easy enough to understand and relate to. He or she wants HTTYD 2 to be a great movie so badly that they're willing to make any leaps of logic, fill in any holes, to make it so. We've all done it, but I for one grew out of that a while back. Sometimes, film makers mess up. You can either accept that, or you can live in a fantasy where everything is perfect. Like I said, I'll need the Blu-Ray to hand to be certain about this, but I'm pretty sure that's all that's going on here. Oh, and NaNoWriMo is National Novel Writing Month (in spite of being an international thing - I guess InNoWriMo didn't have the same ring to it). 50,000 words in 30 days. I'm currently only slightly behind schedule. |
|
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. | |
| Astrid | 10 Nov 2014, 01:46 Post #22 |
Gronckle
|
I know this won't add much to the discution, but Cartoon Freak I am so glad you're still around. It's nice to see some logic around here. Now regarding the interview, well I must say I haven't watched the film since its release and I don't think I will any time soon. I'm just so disappointed with it, it's just going to take a while before I can watch it without getting angry at it. And when I see what it was supposed to be it is so frustrating to know it could be so much better, that original idea could have been so much better for the movie, it just makes me bitter. Anyway I can just hope Dean will make a better movie next time, but this comment is really sad. I've always thought art was something to enjoy but also a wonderful thing that will make you think, that will make you go further and inspire people. But apparently the entertainement factor is what matters, and god forbid you're making your audience think, it seems it has become a sin. |
avatar from graphrofberk.tumblr 
| |
| hcsp1 | 10 Nov 2014, 06:32 Post #23 |
My only master is the free wind
|
Okay, throughout the entire debat that went on here, I have one question to ask. What is wrong with Valka OTHER than the fact that she was re-written from a villian to a good person? Because by the looks from what I've seen here, she suddenly sucks because of that change. Now, before I go on, let me just say I have no problom with opinions. We are humans, we don't always think alike and from comparing our points of view we can learn from each other and get to know each other and all. HOWEVER, there are some things that were said here I think I want to adress. First of all, a movie isn't judged by how YOU WANT IT to be or what IT WAS SUPPOSED to be. A movie is judged by WHAT IT IS. With that said, let's forget what we know now about the rewrites and focus on what we have in the ACTUAL movie. We have a character, who is the main hero's mother, she was presumed dead for 20 years but turns out she was alive, well and was disscovering the creatures that were thought to be deadly and she saves them from people who harm them. What is wrong with this set-up? And for that matter, what is wrong with her being Hiccup's mother like Cartoom Freak was saying? It's actually a really good and believeable way to show where Hiccup got his sensitive side towards dragons that allowed him to befriend Toothless. Now, when it was said that it goes against the first movie, that presented Hiccup as the only one who supports dragons, how? The idea of the movie was never "That one individual is right, everyone else in the world is wrong". The idea was that friendship triumphs over hate and that, and that's continues in HTTYD 2. Hell, after Toothless kills Stoick, Hiccup yells at Toothless to go away and Valka is the one that points it out that it's not Toothless's fault and later when she tells him that only Hiccup can bring humans and dragons together, she probably means that his bond with Toothless is strong enough to match the Alpha's commends and look past what happened. On the part of Valka being flawed that was brought up. Valka herself is the one to bring up her faults; like during their conversation in the snow. She outright say "All this time you took after me, and where was I?" and when she reunits with Stoick she also brings up how wrong she was with staying away("But I was wrong, I see that now"). Why didn't Hiccup and Stoick confront her about this? 1) Hiccup does, right after he meets her and she leads him to the sanctuary, he is pretty much bashes her for not explaining herself. Due granted, this part is kinda rushed and never really brought up again after that so that is a problem. 2) Let's be in this situation Hiccup/Stoick are in for a moment. You grew up without knowing your mother, believing she was killed by those creatures you were taught to hate, all the sudden you disscover she is alive. Are you really going to question it too deeply after barly a day? Same for Stoick, you saw your wife(Husband for the girls here) being taken away from you by a dragon,and then after 20 years of not seeing her, you find out she is alive. Would you really start bashing her right away, or be glad that she is alive, well and you can see her again. Now, what happens AFTER the movie, that could be up for us to decide. About challanging the audiance, I want to say something that has been in my mind since the beginning of this post. This is going to Cartoon Freak and Astrid(The user, not the character), you claim that a movie needs to be challanging and that the original draft did it well because it gave you something to think about. So, I have to ask. Do you need the challange to be brought to you by the filmmakers and can't look for the challange in it for yourself? How do you think I came up with this wall of text above? I tried to think outside of what was given to me. I thought why Valka never came back, I thought about why Stoick was never really mad at her etc. A challange isn't always something that's considered dark and is brought to you, sometimes you need to look for the challange for yourself in the most unassuming parts and that leads to fun disscoveries from time to time. Now, before you tell me. The movie is by no means perfect(No film is without a sin, as CinemaSins say). Drago is a weak villian and some parts fell a bit rushed. But I did want to show another prospective to these points that were brought up. We all have our opinions in the end of the day, and that's what makes it fun to disscuss |
| Cartoon Freak | 10 Nov 2014, 11:03 Post #24 |
|
Deadly Nadder
|
I'd just like to say that Valka is not the worst character I've ever seen. Heck, she's not even the worst professionally written character I've ever seen. Double heck, she's not even the worst written character in a professionally made fictional franchise I enjoy that I've ever seen. There are a lot of reasons for this, but perhaps the biggest one is that she doesn't make Hiccup useless (which she easily could have). She makes him less than what he was, but not useless. So hey, that's something. However, she is the most frustratingly bad character I've ever seen. This is for the simple reason that we know she was originally a good character, and could potentially have been a great character (I'll admit that her dialogue from the original storyboards was a little too clunky, but fixing up things like that is one of the biggest purposes of rewrites). Think of it this way: let's say you had a winning lottery ticket, and then you lost it before you could claim the winnings. Really, you're no worse off than if you'd had any of the 99.999...% of tickets that didn't win. But I would wager that anyone would be significantly more frustrated at losing the winning ticket than at having a losing ticket. Same basic thing with Valka: we had something good, and we lost it. Does that make Valka a worse character than if we hadn't known about this original version of her character? No, but I hope you can see why people like myself are more annoyed by Valka than we would otherwise be. Now, before I go on, let me just say I have no problom with opinions. We are humans, we don't always think alike and from comparing our points of view we can learn from each other and get to know each other and all. HOWEVER, there are some things that were said here I think I want to adress. Well, aside from coming out of absolutely nowhere (seriously, did anyone think that Hiccup's mother was anything other than confirmed dead back when they watched the first?), relying on a ludicrous amount of coincidence (sure, Hiccup just happened to be flying towards her territory, and just happened to bump into her...), ruin a perfectly good joke (yeah, I know breastplates didn't actually work that way, but they appeared to in the first movie), and just being a tired trope in general? There's more, but I'll get into it when it comes up. And there's also probably more problems I haven't mentioned, and won't mention because I didn't think of them. Hey, I'm only one man, doing this in my spare time. But you know what? I would have been happy to deal with all of that, if we'd gotten some payoff for it. The original story had that, in the form of drama. The movie we have doesn't. There is no benefit to Valka being in the movie as is. There is no drama, no conflict, no big emotional payoff. There is nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. And I shall gladly any counter any argument you throw at me, because I've considered them all. Let me start by saying this: I have no problem with someone training dragons before Hiccup. I have no problem with someone training dragons better than Hiccup overall, provided that the movie presents something that Hiccup does better or differently so that it makes sense for him to be the hero and not this other person (to DeBlois' credit, he pulls this off with Valka - kudos). The problem is that the mother is inevitably an influence, however small, on the son. The first movie makes a big deal about choice. In the first movie in and of itself, Hiccup's choice is more noteworthy because it's going against every influence on him: his society, his upbringing, his peers, even his genetics (obviously, Viking society wouldn't have used a term like that, but the idea that children take after their parents is at least as old as the Bible, and probably older). The movie really hammers this home when it looks at the difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't kill a dragon. If Hiccup couldn't kill a dragon, then he is a coward, and he is weak. There are situations where it is justified to do things that wouldn't normally be right, and that includes killing a dragon. If Hiccup wouldn't kill a dragon, then he has made a moral decision. He has said, "Okay, maybe there might be a time when it's right to kill a dragon, but this isn't it." With Valka being Hiccup's mother, the power of this choice is lessened, because we've added a force pushing him towards the direction he ultimately takes. To be fair, it's not removed entirely, as Hiccup does still have plenty of factors pushing him towards killing dragons. But it is less than what it was. It's not that it isn't believable that Hiccup got his dragon-related abilities and sympathies from his mother. It's just that, for those of us who believe in free will (which is probably most of us), Hiccup's choice was perfectly believable without that detail. What's more, it was far more inspiring. We like to believe that we are masters of our own fate. We like to believe that we make our own choices. We like to believe that we are who we choose to be. Imagine if, in the climax of The Iron Giant, Hogarth had said to the Giant, "Your programming includes some form of imprinting, so you are loyal to me." Imagine if in WALL-E, when he gave the plant to EVE in the trash compactor and said "Directive", she had taken the plant to the holodetector and left him there. Imagine if in Terminator 2, as the T-800 was being lowered into the melting pool, he had said, "Judgement Day is inevitable." (I'm sure I described no movie that actually exists). Imagine if, when Hiccup and Astrid were talking on the pier, the dialogue went like this: Astrid: The rest of us would have done it. So why didn't you? Hiccup: I couldn't. Astrid: Okay. All of these would have been lesser movies if those changes were made. And when it comes to that last one, that's basically what we have. Don't believe me? Remember this bit from HTTYD 2? (The quotes aren't exact, since I haven't seen the movie, but I remember the important words) Valka: I couldn't kill a dragon. Hiccup: Yeah, it runs in the family. The movie agrees with me. 1. The problem is not that Valka doesn't have faults (again, this does raise her above some characters in fiction). The problem is that no one else in the movie acts as if she is. Heck, I don't even recall Drago or Eret calling her out anything, and they would at least have been able to do so without making her actually seem like a bad person (off-topic: if Drago, or anyone for that matter, gives Valka a "The Reason You Suck Speech" in the third movie, I will cheer). The result of this is that her 'flaw' becomes less "anything that you said", and more, "Oh, your self-esteem is so low that you don't realise how wonderful you really are." That is the single most annoying excuse for a flaw in all of fiction. Everyone hates it when they see it in fanfiction, but people tolerate it in a professionally made movie for some reason. Why do we expect more from amateurs than from professionals? Let's look at an unrelated example: Bella Swan and Edward Cullen from the Twilight Saga (if I'm wrong on this, replace them with Rayford Steele and Buck Williams - yes, those are their names - from the Left Behind series; I figure less of you are likely to be familiar with that). Both are, by all accounts outside of the fanbase, horrible people, yet they are never presented as such in the books and movies. Does this make them better written or more poorly written? 2. Hiccup and Stoick raise no objections to any of Valka's actions. Hiccup demands an explanation of her backstory, but that's a completely different thing. And to put it simply, human beings do not work that way. There are some things we just respond negatively to, not because it's good, or right, or even logical, we just work that way. Betrayal is at the top of that list, and what is abandoning someone but a form of betrayal? Now, most of us are willing to forgive such things sometimes, especially if the betrayer is someone we love. From that perspective, I have no problem with Hiccup and Stoick forgiving Valka, but to forgive someone, you have to acknowledge that they did something wrong in the first place. Additionally, it's something that takes time. Reconciliations of that magnitude should not be instantaneous. It's sad, really, because Stoick and Valka's relationship could have been fixed so easily. Just have Stoick react negatively to Valka when he first sees her, then have Drago's attack interrupt things. Everyone's willing to work together during the battle on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", though relations between Stoick and Valka would still be far from friendly. Then you have the battle proceed as normal, and when Stoick saves Valka from Drago, it's a sign that he still loves her. Heck, you can even have the sappy, superficial line, "You're as beautiful as the day I lost you" line, if you really want. It would be slightly less bad there. Alternatively or in addition, have Valka not confess that she still loves Stoick until after he's dead. Either or both ways, you get way more emotional punch from their relationship than we got in the actual film. Heck, by cutting out the scene with "For the Dancing and the Dreaming", they'd save time and money, in addition to having the characters act like actual human beings, instead of creepy Hallmark pod people. Mr Katzenberg, if by some bizarre chance you're reading this, I will make your films better while lowering production costs, thus boosting your profits. I will also work for less than anyone on your writing staff. It will still probably be an increase from my current pay. Hey, I can dream, can't I? I'm all for some ambiguity (as an example, they easily could have made Valka's identity ambiguous, providing hints that she might be Hiccup's mother while never confirming it - that would have been rather brilliant), but I'm not for stuff that just doesn't make sense. We shouldn't be having to make the story and characters make sense, because that's the job of the filmmakers. If they can't do that, then they have failed. If characters don't act like human beings (unless them not acting like human beings is the point, e.g. Invasion of the Body Snatchers), then the writers have failed. If the fans have to come up with explanations that ignore the most fundamental rules of human nature (e.g. "I instantly forgive you" - seriously, Yu-gi-oh Abridged poked fun at this idea), then the writers of the original work have failed. Heck, name a terrible movie, one that is complete nonsense, and unintentionally so. One that you hate with every fibre of your being. Go on, name it, before reading the next line. That movie was just a hallucination the main character had while on some drug. Now, did that make that movie better? No, of course it didn't. It's still a lousy movie. Such exercises of imagination and ludicrously resistant readings can be fun, and may even help you enjoy a text more. It doesn't make said text any better. Just do what I plan to do: skip through to the parts you like. In my case, I plan to skip most of the second act (basically, everything from Hiccup flying away from Stoick to the start of the big battle). I theorise the movie will make about as much sense as it does in its complete form. [imagination]Oh hey, Stoick's got a hot girlfriend for some reason. He's still got it! Though I must admit, I didn't think he'd be into scalies. Also, I see they're topping the "giant dragon out of nowhere" bit with a "two giant dragons out of nowhere" bit. Cool. [/imagination] Well, it will be more entertaining, at least. |
|
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. | |
| hcsp1 | 10 Nov 2014, 12:31 Post #25 |
|
My only master is the free wind
|
Okay, on that challange bit, I could have worded myself better. I was in a hurry while writing this so I forgot the point I was trying to make... Yay for me being an idiot. Anyway, what I meant by look for the challange is; If it matters so much that the film NEEDS to supply you challange, like Hiccup fighting his own mother in the original draft(Which I forgot to ask, where did you find? I would want to read it myself), but doesn't really give you any; then why not try and fill in plot holes or have theories about certain stuff in order to challange yourself. It wasn't an actual defense on the movie's side as an attempt to be sarcastic on the subject. Not every movie out there needs to be challanging in order to be great, and for what we got HTTYD 2 was challanging to a lot of people with the entire way Stoick was killed(From what I've heard people say). But I guess we just look at this in a different way, not that it's a bad thing. I actually enjoyed reading your comment. And speaking of movies I hate, you should totally write a blog where you tear movies apart! I'll read that! |
| DarthBacon | 10 Nov 2014, 12:41 Post #26 |
Gronckle
|
What was so wrong about "For the Dancing and the Dreaming"?  I actually prefer that to " Where No One Goes", which was completely out of place and kind of ruined the whole scene. I even dislike the way how they ended the movie. I wish it would have been more like the first one's ending, with Hiccup's modest narration. There was no need for him to shout. It should have ended with Hiccup becoming the chief, but i guess Dean just wanted to add the "This is Berk" part, now that it has become so much more prominent. Thinking about it now, this movie could have been so much better. I guess this movie is going to be remembered for a long time more for its wasted potential than for what it actually delivered. But still, it was worth the wait and in some ways even surpassed the original. That's something, right? And yeah. you should totally start a blog where you just tear movies apart xD. I would love to read that. Oh, and that blog I suggested IS the best blog for HTTYD out there. Its not at all over analysing, just some sensible thoughts that actually help you to relate to the movie much better. |
  
| |
| KentuckyWildcat | 10 Nov 2014, 13:42 Post #27 |
Raw Vikingness
|
Cartoon Freak has already broken down most of the problems with Valka in a far more thorough manner than I have the time or energy for at the moment. Suffice it to say that I agree with him. There's one other thing that bothers me about her final iteration compared to the early drafts that I didn't see him touch on though. In completely removing most if not all of her negative actions and having Stoick reconcile with her at first sight, they lost a chance for Hiccup's growth in the movie to be deeper and more meaningful than what we got. The original concept was for him to have to make his own way while being torn between his feral dragon-like mother and his ever dutiful father. There's none of that present in the actual movie. There's no tough choices for him to consider about who he really wants to be when his parents don't have the slightest bit of discord between them and they jointly give him their full support. There's some hints during the funeral scene that his attitude has changed since the beginning of the movie, but without ever truly exploring the internal (and external) conflict that was supposed to bring him to that point, it feels a bit less satisfying than it otherwise could have. |
| Come death. Come suffering. I will not live in fear. In this fleeting life where time escapes us, the path of least resistance is a slow quiet death. I'd rather burn out than fade away. | |
| Cartoon Freak | 10 Nov 2014, 18:48 Post #28 |
|
Deadly Nadder
|
A film doesn't need to provide challenge to be good or even great (the original HTTYD isn't a very challenging film, and it's my favourite of all time), though it certainly makes a film better, provided that the "challenge" isn't actually shoddy characterisation, plotting or some other aspect of writing. Sometimes, I will do much as you say, thinking through explanations on plot holes and the like. But here's the thing: no text is owed that, and it's still shoddy writing if I'm having to do the writers' jobs for them by making the plot and characters make sense. Again, this isn't ambiguity, it's just bad writing. And of course, the frustration factor plays a huge part here. We know that Valka was a more challenging character at one point, so it's frustrating that the only "challenges" we get from her in the actual movie are plot holes and characters not acting like human beings. Oh, and regarding the original draft, I haven't read or seen it, but someone was kind enough to give us some crucial storyboards on this topic: http://forums.berksgrapevine.com/topic/10527226/1/ I do have my issues with "Where No One Goes", but they're entirely unrelated to this topic. In regards to "For the Dancing and the Dreaming", there are a few issues I have with it. 1. It's another example of characters not acting like human beings. Stoick and Valka should not be reconciling this quickly, and this song doesn't actually help the reconciliation in any believable way. It doesn't make up for the fact that Valka abandoned him, or any of the other problems with their relationship. It doesn't fix anything. Heck, Stoick's the one doing all the work in this relationship, and he didn't even do anything wrong from that perspective. This is the exact opposite of how it should be. 2. It's a colossal waste of time. The pair are already reconciled by the end of their reunion scene. The song adds nothing, and eats up three minutes of screentime, according to the soundtrack, and that's not counting the rest of that scene. In a film that's regarded as rush by all but its most obsessive fans, the fact that there's a three-minute scene that is completely pointless boggles the mind. 3. It's just not a very good song, when you get down to it. It's not bad per se, but it's utterly bland and uninspiring. In five years, no one will remember it, except when they're watching the movie. Well, let me put it this way: I'd rather have had no sequel than the bad sequel. Note that I said bad sequel, not bad film. The latter is not a fair description of HTTYD 2. It might help if I define my terms. The way I see it, a good sequel increases the average quality of the series. This can be done by either having the sequel be better than the average quality of the series before it, or by somehow making earlier film(s) in the series better. Sequel hooks are a great way to set up a good sequel, since having questions answered often makes the original better. HTTYD 2 is not only worse than the original, it actually makes the original worse. HTTYD 3 might be a good sequel, but I'm not getting my hopes up. So yeah, I'd much rather not have had any sequels. But hey, we're stuck with the sequels. Such is life, and there are definitely worse sequels out there. It's in the pipeline, but will need to wait until December at the earliest. As I said before, I can't be certain without a copy of the film to hand, but at a glance, it looks like the writer is inferring things that simply aren't there. If it helps people to enjoy the movie more, then fair enough, but it's basically them doing the work to make up for the movie's shortcomings. |
|
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. | |
| Kyle | 11 Nov 2014, 00:56 Post #29 |
Hatchling
|
I do have to ask, and this is just a question, whatever you think of the movie is fine by me, not everyone needs to love everything. Why dwell on something you dislike so much? Your replies have been very thought out, you are no troll, I am sure of it, but why take the time? |
| Visit my portfolio! Portfolio | |
| Cartoon Freak | 11 Nov 2014, 07:15 Post #30 |
|
Deadly Nadder
|
Short answer: Because I care. Longer answer: Specifically, I care about two things: good writing in general, and this franchise in particular. Future writers may come from the strangest places, maybe even this forum. If they've seen some detailed criticism of something that doesn't work, they may be able to prevent themselves from making the same mistakes in the future. When it comes to this franchise in particular, it's probably less likely to have any effect, but I can't deny the possibility. There is evidence to suggest that some people from Dreamworks read these forums, so maybe, just maybe, I'll get through to them, or (more likely) nudge them in the direction of seeing the mistakes they made. If they are aware of their mistakes, they are considerably less likely to make them in the future. If they can avoid making the same sort of mistakes in HTTYD 3 that they did in the second movie, then the third film will be better for it. If all an artist sees is praise, then they are highly unlikely to improve. |
|
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. | |
| Users browsing this forum:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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 27 Apr 2024, 02:30 |