- Quote:
-
I would like to point out the use of the word "Indirect" in the earlier post. Considering how Stoick would react to the Bewilderbeast attacking his home (directed by Valka or no). Than one could assume that it could sense him as a threat and get Toothless to attack Stoick its self.
Looking at the storyboards we've seen with Valka as the villain, it's very clear that she does not have any of the brainwashed dragons, including Toothless, attack anyone, including Stoick. To Valka's credit, she doesn't seem to want to kill anyone who isn't an actual threat, and there's simply no universe in which a squishy human could ever be viewed as a threat to ice dragon Godzilla.
While I can't deny the possibility of an accidental killing (though within the original story, it would have been some fairly cheap emotional manipulation rather than an integral part of the story) it would make Valka so much less evil (not in a bad way, mind you) that the entire issue would be moot. She would simply be a person with good intentions who did some bad things, and happened to have them spiral out of control. Kids are smart enough to get that.
- Quote:
-
Lucas did this after Vader was set up as a straight villain not a sympathetic antagonist.
Um, that would make the hypothetical HTTYD 2 example easier for kids to handle, not worse. Vader is shown as straight-up evil and, while there are hints of a possible redemption in Episode V, most kids probably wouldn't catch it. With Valka, on the other hand, while it would be clear that she was doing some bad things, it's also clear that there is some definite good in her, and thus she can be saved. And again, does anyone actually doubt that she would have had at least some significant redemption in the second film?
This is way easier to take than Vader, and that's not even getting into the fact that Luke idolised his father, and based his entire adult life around living up to his legacy.
- Quote:
-
So far my opinion is leaning towards maybe not. I like DeBlois, I think he's a good enough writer but he still does show some blindness when it comes to Valka's character.
Actually, having seen the released storyboards and read the interview, I'm inclined to think that the reason DeBlois views Valka the way he does (feral, flawed, etc.) is because his mind is still firmly in the original concept of her, which was those things. So basically, if the movie had gone with the original concept of the character, she probably would have worked.
- Quote:
-
To DeBlois credit and to be completely honest with you though. I can't think of any movie that has done this in just one installment with a similar run time and executed it well.
Okay, so basically, you want me to name a movie where the protagonist's parent becomes an extremist, with the best of intentions, is represented sympathetically throughout, and ultimately gets his redemption at the end?
I can think of one. It's called How to Train Your Dragon.
Seriously, Stoick in the first film is incredibly similar to original Valka. Neither think humans and dragons can live in peace. Both are willing to do some extreme things. Both are represented sympathetically (Stoick definitely in practice, Valka in theory, though Stoick's representation means that they could probably pull that off as well), and both would likely get redemption of some sort in the end (again, a bit of an assumption for Valka, but a justified one). They're just coming at the basic problem from other sides. That was almost certainly intentional on DeBlois' part, but with the changes, we're left with a Valka who just doesn't fit, and holds no interest as a character.