Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
New interview with Dean DeBlois
Topic Started: 05 Nov 2014, 19:00 (4340 Views)
Mac
User avatar
Dragon Egg

Thought this might interest some peoples :)

(this article talks a bit about HTTYD 3 so this is a spoiler alert....maybe ...if you don't want to know absolutely anything about even possible HTTYD 3 storylines)

http://collider.com/how-to-train-your-d ... interview/
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Demonwolf002
User avatar
Lone Dragon

First off it's really cool to get to see the full version of this article. The short version was posted and talked about here on the forums. http://forums.berksgrapevine.com/topic/10667023/1/
Also to help out a little here's a link to the first article as well so we can see the difference between the two. http://collider.com/how-to-train-your-d ... -spinoffs/
Figured I would post the links so we don't end up going over the exact same ground others may already have.

For the article its self it's interesting to read that Dean wasn't to happy with Drago's character. Considering quite a few people (myself included) felt it wasn't the best. Like he had a definite screen presence, but his character just wasn't all there for a villain. To me personally I felt like he didn't exactly live up to his build up either. It was also really cool to read about how Powell approaches doing the soundtrack. It most certainly shows in the movies, and I think is an interesting way of just adding to it all. Then there was the talk about Valka being the antagonist, and the story change there was because of the target audience was interesting to. I'm curious to see what other think on this though.

An interesting read most definitely. Thank you for posting it. ^_^
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
KentuckyWildcat
User avatar
Raw Vikingness

It's a good interview. The more I read about the subject, the more I really wish we could have seen Dean's original vision for the story.

For one thing, Valka as a sympathetic antagonist just sounds more interesting than what we ended up getting. Second and just as importantly, it sounds like the call from higher up to nix her villainous side came late enough in the game that it stunted both her and Drago's character (I disagree that they still ended up pulling off a balancing act with Valka as I feel her flaws were pretty non-existent in the finished version).

Either way it still leaves me excited that he realizes Drago could have turned out better and feels confident that the final antagonist will be better developed. Hopefully HTTYD 3 brings a satisfying end to the trilogy.
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Demonwolf002
User avatar
Lone Dragon

You know one question that does come to mind about Valka switching from antagonist to protagonist. Is how Dean states it was one of the biggest changes that came late in the cycle. Which makes one wonder how much of the story changed with it. For example Stoick's death, was it in Dean's original script set up differently but still in the second film. Or was it set for the third film instead and meant to happen the same way it did now just later. That most certainly would be a hugely different take on the story. If it was his mother that had got Stoick killed even if indirectly, and it gives credence to Dreamworks wanting to change it. Although I don't feel that would have been the way they would have set it up it's an interesting thought. Also it might explain why Gerard is still set to be in the third film. Because the change came so late the cast list had yet to be changed for the third film to reflect what happened in the second. Although admittedly that is some fairly weak reasoning on my part. And it would still stand to reason he could be apart of another flashback scene.
Spoiler: click to toggle
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
hcsp1
User avatar
My only master is the free wind

It's funny how with each intereview with Dean, I appreciate him more as a director(And as a person too). I like how if there is an element he isn't really satisfied with, he talks about it and admits "I could have done better on that part" like with Drago. Not a lot of directors adress these things, no matter if the movie is good or bad, so I like how he is honest about his work.

The aspect of Valka being the villian is actually that I would want to see a draft of. The idea is really interesting and you know what? Kudos for actually thinking about it to the point it was actually written and was a part of a draft. But as much as I appreciate risks and challanging the audience, this would have been a VERY big risk for this movie. Mostly because it's animated and mothers take their kids to these movies... If HTTYD was a live action franchise, this would have flown better(Not saying that it should be live-action! Oh no!). The risk they did take however was still great in my opinion, as an animated film and as a film in general.

  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Cartoon Freak
User avatar
Deadly Nadder

Right, so as far as I can tell, DeBlois' official explanation for turning away from Valka being the villain is that the audience are idiots, incapable of understanding something as simple as "sometimes people with good intentions do the wrong things." Which means that he thinks that the audience has gotten stupider than 2010, since that's basically what was going on with Stoick in the first film. Good to know.

Oh, and DeBlois may be technically correct when he says that Valka is flawed in her current form, but it doesn't mean anything unless other characters actually react to those flaws. Which no one does. So yeah, she may as well be perfect.

Oh, and the bit about Valka being introduced organically made me laugh. Okay, so it wasn't the most forced character introduction ever, but it was up there.
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Demonwolf002
User avatar
Lone Dragon

Cartoon Freak
07 Nov 2014, 04:01
Right, so as far as I can tell, DeBlois' official explanation for turning away from Valka being the villain is that the audience are idiots, incapable of understanding something as simple as "sometimes people with good intentions do the wrong things." Which means that he thinks that the audience has gotten stupider than 2010, since that's basically what was going on with Stoick in the first film. Good to know.
For the sake of discussion in Deans defense. I would like to refer to my earlier question how much of the story also changed when Valka switched from antagonist to protagonist. If we were to assume that Stoicks death was the same more or less just caused by a Valka instead. Which means we also need to assume Valka used her Bewilderbeast to do the same thing Drago had done tot Toothless, but not to destroy Berk but just take the dragons away from their. Then I don't personally think anyone can't say that's not kinda dark for a childrens movie, at least to some small degree more so than what it was. I mean it's one thing for Drago to do it he's the villain it's easy to grasp that he would do bad things. Granted it should be easy to grasp that Valka may do similar things because she thinks shes making the right choice. The underlying meaning may not come across as well. Also the implications are still a bit darker one way then the other. All that said though I still personally sit in the camp that kids are smarter than that, and will be able to pick up on the underlying meaning even if only slightly. But when you look at it in that light you can maybe see why Dreamworks didn't want to take the risk. There's also maybe a few other story assumptions you could make as to how it may not have come across very well. All of the above though does assume Valka's character would be more or less the same just expanded upon quite a bit more.

With this many assumptions however might as well call Occam's razor in to play. And say it may have just been that Dean and company couldn't get across a similar idea. Whether it was vastly different in execution or not, and decided to redo it instead of having an (possibly) entire plot point not come across well. Which could have ended up much worse as far as the movies concerned. If this were the case personally I feel that this may have been more a decision by the higher ups, and that Dean may have wanted to try and make it work. Just that they wouldn't give him the time to do so which is why he gives the reason he does.
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Cartoon Freak
User avatar
Deadly Nadder

Quote:
 
If we were to assume that Stoicks death was the same more or less just caused by a Valka instead. Which means we also need to assume Valka used her Bewilderbeast to do the same thing Drago had done tot Toothless, but not to destroy Berk but just take the dragons away from their.
Okay, I'd like to start by saying that I don't think the movie would have gone down that route if Valka had been the antagonist. Yes, the storyboards make it clear that she would have used the Bewilderbeast to brainwash the dragons, including Toothless. There is not, however, any evidence to suggest that Toothless would have killed Stoick, nor do I think it's very likely. The reasoning is pretty straightforward. The original story appears to basically amount to, "Hiccup works to restore unity between humans and dragons by restoring unity between his parents." That's pretty much why you have them on opposite sides of the conflict in the first place. Any restoration is pretty much impossible if Valka kills Stoick, and DeBlois strikes me as a sufficiently competent writer to get that.

Note also that, unlike with the current film, there's no need to kill Stoick off at this point, especially given that DeBlois knew that he had another movie to do that in. There's more than enough interesting character development within that original story without having to force any more.

This idea that the movie was about reconciling the parents is enhanced by the fact that DeBlois still seems to think it's an important factor in the current film, in spite of the fact that the entirety of it amounts to "Oh hi Dad, I ran into Mum. You two will now make up, even though human beings do not work that way."

With all that said, I acknowledge that I do not have decisive evidence that the original story did not involve Toothless (as directed by Valka) killing Stoick, so let's assume for the sake of argument that it did. I would like to take your basic point and make it more general, since that will reveal my counterargument quite organically. As I understand it, you are basically saying this:

A movie in which a parent of the protagonist kills a mentor to the protagonist would be too dark for children.

Why yes, I did just describe The Empire Strikes Back (well, in conjunction with A New Hope), which I have no doubt was incredibly popular with children back in the day, and especially with one Dreamworks employee. Now, it's true that Obi-wan was not Luke's father, but he was easily the most important person to Luke at the time, and very much a father figure, as well as a character loved by the audience. When you get down to it, what is the fundamental difference between that and Valka being directly responsible for Stoick's death (and again, that's a pretty big assumption)?

Heck, the original story for HTTYD 2 would almost certainly have had one big advantage over The Empire Strikes Back, in that it would almost certainly have provided some sort of redemption for Valka (probably something that would be expanded upon in the third film, but very obviously set up in the second). Dreamworks doesn't strike me as the sort to leave a cliffhanger as big as the protagonist's mother being evil (and to be fair, neither does any major western animation studio). So there would at least be more closure to that plotline than there was in The Empire Strikes Back.

In short, if kids could handle Darth Vader being Luke's father and everything that went with that (and the evidence suggests that they could), then they could handle Valka in her original form.
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Demonwolf002
User avatar
Lone Dragon

Quote:
 
With all that said, I acknowledge that I do not have decisive evidence that the original story did not involve Toothless (as directed by Valka) killing Stoick, so let's assume for the sake of argument that it did.
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.
Quote:
 
A movie in which a parent of the protagonist kills a mentor to the protagonist would be too dark for children.

Why yes, I did just describe The Empire Strikes Back (well, in conjunction with A New Hope), which I have no doubt was incredibly popular with children back in the day, and especially with one Dreamworks employee.
I feel this may not be the best counter argument. A good example sure but not a counter argument. For one Lucas had two movies to get this right while also having around an extra twenty minutes to work with in both movies as well. Couple that with the gap between releases and you give kids time to dwell and talk and grow. DeBlois has only one movie with less run time than either. Lets also note that timing for this kind of reveal needs to be right. Lucas did this after Vader was set up as a straight villain not a sympathetic antagonist. Granted it's been awhile so there might have been some clever foreshadowing here and there but nothing concrete. But with that in mind, it sounds like that DeBlois was trying to reveal who Valka was to Hiccup earlier than her possibly committed actions. Which if not done properly could and can come across poorly to any audience.

With all this in mind though I think this has turned into less of a discussion on would kids be able to get and understand the idea,(which again I do believe they would) and more would they get Deans execution of the idea. 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. All writers have their faults he's no exception but maybe he just couldn't get the story idea across this time because of that. 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.
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Cartoon Freak
User avatar
Deadly Nadder

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.
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.
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Users browsing this forum:
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests
Print view
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · How to Train Your Dragon 2 · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4