Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Hints For Httyd 3
Topic Started: 13 May 2015, 10:03 (4287 Views)
thenightandthefury
User avatar
Gronckle

I'll go in order; note some of these pertain to race to the edge.

"That's my future daughter-in-law!" -Stoick HTTYD 2. Does this mean Hiccup will propose in Race to the Edge?

"Watch the tail! Tie those legs up! Is that what I think it is?" -Eret son of Eret

"Back again? Soil my britches! That is a night fury! Thought they were all gone for good. Looks like our lucks had a turn for the better lads; don't think has Drago has one of those... in his dragon army." Eret son of Eret. This implies Eret has seen a night fury, maybe even captured one before or been part of their demise.


"Can I? Oh I've never seen a night fury this close! And he might very well be the last of his kind. And look; he's your age! No wonder you get along so well! And retractable teeth... how did you manage?" Valka upon encountering Toothless. Then implies she has seen a night fury up close, but not close enough to touch one.

"I'll teach you all I've learned these past twenty years..." -Valka as she shows Toothless and Hiccup his secret ability.

"There; now he can make those tight turns." -Valka; she must have had some sort of encounter with a night fury that was close enough or long enough to see their secret, perhaps even have a bond with one of sorts.

"You need dragons.. to conquer other dragons."
"Or maybe you need dragons to conquer people. To control those who follow you, and get rid of those who won't."
"Clever boy."
-Hiccup/Drago HTTYD 2 This implies that Drago is much more demented and plans to use the dragon army to kill of the dragon race.

All these hints point to a reveal of what happened to night furies, why there are so few or only one still alive, if there are any more and how and why the dragons will disappear. Also, if its any interest, I suspect Drago's cape is made of night fury skin. After all, what strikes more fear into a vikings heart then to conquer the most fearsome dragon that one has never seen?
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Demonwolf002
User avatar
Lone Dragon

Just going to preface this with I'm playing Devils advocate here.
Quote:
 
"That's my future daughter-in-law!" -Stoick HTTYD 2. Does this mean Hiccup will propose in Race to the Edge?
Nothing wrong with the idea just it's not going to happen in Race To The Edge. Because RTTE is still going to cover the year between the first and second movie. As far as we know right now that could change in which case may not actually be wrong but for now RTTE doesn't seem like the place it's going to happen.
Quote:
 
"Back again? Soil my britches! That is a night fury! Thought they were all gone for good. Looks like our lucks had a turn for the better lads; don't think has Drago has one of those... in his dragon army." Eret son of Eret. This implies Eret has seen a night fury, maybe even captured one before or been part of their demise.
This is one I just personally doubt. Mostly because the franchise has so far made Nightfuries come off as well known but very rare. To me this more implies that at one point in time Nightfuries while maybe not being common were spread out quite far. That at one point in time there were more and people saw them somewhat more often which is why they're so recognizable now. Stories were spread around and talked about possibly quite often at some point in the past. I don't however think it implies Eret had anything to do with them other than hearing stories. Either from his homeland (which helps out with the far spread idea) or he'd just heard them while on his travels as a dragon trapper(Which still helps out with that idea).

One thing you could say (and something the franchise might actually do) is that the stories of Nightfuries and that they may have been rare and powerful dragons inspired him (or even his father who's footsteps he might be following in) to become a dragon trapper to one day take on and catch this legendary dragon.
Quote:
 
Valka; she must have had some sort of encounter with a night fury that was close enough or long enough to see their secret, perhaps even have a bond with one of sorts.
This one is kind of disproved by one of your earlier quotes. "Oh I've never seen a nightfury this close." More or less kills any possibility of her having gotten close enough to form a bond with one. I would say this falls under her having heard about them from Berk since she lived there. Unless since she was gone for around twenty years she traveled around and had either seen or heard about them from somewhere in her travels. Which is definitely possible and puts my earlier idea of where she found out about them to bed, but it doesn't mean she'd made a bond with one though.

But if You'll indulge me going off on a side tangent here I might have some help to throw at theory crafting. If we refer to the first movie and look specifically at the book of dragons then we see the entry is very lite on info. Which could imply a few things one would be it's a fairly new entry and they only recently encountered them implying Toothless is the first one the vikings have seen. But with this idea we have another problem crop up. That being Valka is considered to be around 40 years old Toothless is said by Valka to be around 20. Now if we believe this to be 100% correct then it's entirely unlikely for that entry to be new and for Berk to have never seen them before because how would Valka know about them. Unless you refer to the other above idea I gave which is possible, but this is also under more scrutiny when you think about how long the vikings have lived on Berk for. We know at the very least it's been for a few hundred years. The fact they wouldn't have seen or have heard of a Nightfury before now is quite rare in itself as well considering how many other people who've not been on Berk know about them.

Now all of this explains how she may or may not know about them, but there's one other thing we need to tackle here. So how dose someone who's never been this close to a Nightfury before know immediately how to help one out. Well other than saying cannon breaking character is breaking we can come up with a possible explanation. (although we shouldn't have to come up with explanations for poor writing in my opinion) So we can assume since so many people not from Berk know about Nightfuries they were somewhat far spread or stories of them were at least. We can also assume Valka traveled around during her time away from Berk. Now again remember I'm going off the idea that she's never seen a Nightfury this close before. So with all of this in mind what if she'd been to a place where Nightfuries were possibly a less rare site at some point in time. Also assume that people lived in this place so they may have gotten to see them more often and studied them as well. Now knowing Valka wants to protect dragons and knowing she has a fairly dim view on people and their ability to change. Let's assume this village didn't study them to be friendly, but in order to kill them instead like Berk. Why not take the chance to study that info to be able to better help one if you ever come across one since you wan't to protect them. So there you have it an idea on how she could possibly help Toothless while never meeting a Nightfury before. All of this is heavy speculation and assumption though and should not be taken as fact in anyway, but that's the whole point of a theory though right. :P
Quote:
 
Also, if its any interest, I suspect Drago's cape is made of night fury skin.
You're not the only one who has thought this. It was talked about some when the movie trailer was first released, and I'm sorry but it was wrong then to. Here is a somewhat side by side of the cloak and Toothless scales.

Unless Nightfury scales change texture, and look as they get older it's not a Nightfury scale cloak. It's definitely possible we don't have enough info to prove it wrong currently. And I most certainly see how some could see similarities. But there are some noticeable differences between the two to give reasonable enough doubt. I get why people keep coming up with the idea it makes sense and would be pretty cool, but it's just not the case unfortunately.

Well that's enough of me rambling though I suppose so lets see where we can go from here. ^_^
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

Demonwolf002
14 May 2015, 05:44
Quote:
 
"That's my future daughter-in-law!" -Stoick HTTYD 2. Does this mean Hiccup will propose in Race to the Edge?
Nothing wrong with the idea just it's not going to happen in Race To The Edge. Because RTTE is still going to cover the year between the first and second movie. As far as we know right now that could change in which case may not actually be wrong but for now RTTE doesn't seem like the place it's going to happen.
The fact that Race to the Edge is set between the first two movies is precisely why thenightandthefury proposed this theory. If Hiccup proposes to Astrid at some point in RttE, then that doesn't mean they get married then and there. Rather, it means that they've promised to get married at some point in the future. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that, even if a date had been set for the wedding (I know two people who got engaged over a year ago and still haven't set an official date for the wedding) it could easily have been after HTTYD 2. Therefore, it would be entirely reasonable for Stoick to proclaim Astrid to be his "future daughter-in-law", rather than him merely being his over-eager self.

Of course, the fact that it is perfectly reasonable for Hiccup and Astrid to get engaged in RttE doesn't mean that it has to happen. The line still works, regardless of whether or not it's accurate.
Demonwolf002
 
Long theory about Valka and Night Furies.
I think you're overthinking this (insert your own joke about pots and kettles here). The reason the book hardly has any information about Night Furies is, of course, because no one on Berk has seen one up close and lived to tell the tale (this is made quite explicit in the first film). This is because of two factors: one, attacks happen at night (which makes it rather difficult to see the black dragon); two, Night Furies never steal food (which means they never have to stop, which means no one has long enough to focus on one to get a clear mental image).

However, most, if not all, characters in the franchise recognise a Night Fury when presented with one. This comes down to two very recognisable factors. First, the Night Fury's distinctive cry (note: this might actually be the sound of its flight rather than something that comes from its mouth - I can't be bothered checking right now, and the point stands regardless). This is how the vikings are able to tell that a Night Fury is able to attack in the first film. The second factor is just common sense: there are no other black dragons in either film, nor have there been in the TV series to date (and I certainly hope there won't be, since that would raise too many questions). Therefore, when a person who is at least fairly knowledgeable about dragons (such as Gobber, Eret, or Valka) sees a black dragon, they're going to be able to use their brains to figure out that it's almost certainly the super-rare dragon that usually attacks without being seen.
Quote:
 
Also, if its any interest, I suspect Drago's cape is made of night fury skin.
You're not the only one who has thought this. It was talked about some when the movie trailer was first released, and I'm sorry but it was wrong then to...

Unless Nightfury scales change texture, and look as they get older it's not a Nightfury scale cloak. It's definitely possible we don't have enough info to prove it wrong currently. And I most certainly see how some could see similarities. But there are some noticeable differences between the two to give reasonable enough doubt. I get why people keep coming up with the idea it makes sense and would be pretty cool, but it's just not the case unfortunately.[/quote]

If Drago comes back in the third film (as far as I know, that's not a sure thing at this point, but it is very probable), then it will, without a doubt, be revealed that Drago's cloak is made from Night Fury skin. This just comes down to an awareness of storytelling techniques.

Toothless is the only black dragon we've seen to date (Skrills are dark grey, but no one would mistake them for black in the good lighting in which we see Drago's cloak). Drago's cloak being black is very obvious foreshadowing that it's made from Night Fury skin, or else they would have put another black dragon into the second film, at the very least. This is a pretty basic form of Chekhov's Gun (a technique that Dreamworks are very good at using), and to not have the cloak not be made from Night Fury skin would just piss off the audience for no good reason.
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
 
I think you're overthinking this
Agreed, but if we followed Occam's Razor all the time it would be a little less fun. Wouldn't you agree?
Cartoon Freak
 
This is a pretty basic form of Chekhov's Gun (a technique that Dreamworks are very good at using), and to not have the cloak not be made from Night Fury skin would just piss off the audience for no good reason.
I'm curious what scene or scenes make you think this is a basic form of Chekhov's Gun. I have a few ideas as to which but I would like some clarification if you would before I say anything else.

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

Demonwolf002
15 May 2015, 00:14
Cartoon Freak
 
I think you're overthinking this
Agreed, but if we followed Occam's Razor all the time it would be a little less fun. Wouldn't you agree?
True that, hence why I noted the irony of myself of pointing it out. I just thought it worth mentioning that the simplest explanation worked.
Demonwolf002[quote=Cartoon Freak
 
This is a pretty basic form of Chekhov's Gun (a technique that Dreamworks are very good at using), and to not have the cloak not be made from Night Fury skin would just piss off the audience for no good reason.
I'm curious what scene or scenes make you think this is a basic form of Chekhov's Gun. I have a few ideas as to which but I would like some clarification if you would before I say anything else.[/quote]

Okay, let's start with a quote that defines Chekhov's Gun (the emphasis is mine):
Anton Chekhov
 
Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.
I like this quote the best because of that first sentence, which makes the whole concept more general, rather than tying it to objects being used.

In the case of Drago's cloak, we have two basic possibilities: either it's from a Night Fury or it isn't. Now, you have presented some evidence to suggest that it isn't from a Night Fury (which I'll get to in a moment), but let me ask you this: if it's from a different type of dragon, then why is it black? Now, the in-universe would be "because the dragon was black". Now, to be fair, this doesn't contradict anything. We haven't seen any other black dragons, but we also haven't been given any evidence that directly suggests that Night Furies are the only black dragons. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, Drago's cloak was definitely made black intentionally, and he was also designed for a movie that only featured one living black dragon. Outside of the possibility of it being Night Fury skin, what relevance would the colour of Drago's cloak have? The answer, as far as I can see, is "none". Even the argument of "because black = evil" (which, given that Drago is a very cliched villain, holds some merit) doesn't hold up under analysis, because the only black dragon in this franchise is one of the heroes, and the other hero is a guy who mostly wears black in this film (kudos to Dreamworks for giving the pair a similar colour scheme). In short, if the cloak is not made from a Night Fury, then it shouldn't have been black, as any dragon skin will do for showing that this guy is evil.

Now, if the skin is from a Night Fury, then that opens up possibilities. The most obvious one is if it turns out that Drago wiped out the last known nest of Night Furies (there are, of course, other possibilities, but they're tangential to the main point). Not only do we thus have an explanation for Toothless' "sole survivor" status, but we also have a purpose for the cloak being black, namely foreshadowing that little fact.

There are two facts that make this not just ideal, but probable. The first is that Drago was originally going to make his entrance in the third film, which, by all the information that I have seen, is going to deal with such things. The second is that Dreamworks use Chekhov's Gun (in various forms) a lot in their more serious films, mainly the HTTYD and Kung Fu Panda franchises.

Now, I'd just like to draw attention to the differences between Drago's cloak and Toothless' skin. In short, you are correct, in that they do not have the exact same texture and colour. However, it is worth noting that the cloak is obviously not from Toothless (well, unless Spitelout actually reveals himself to be the Doctor in the third film), and no two Night Furies need look exactly the same. I should also mention that, while I do have a very limited knowledge of sewing, the cloak appears to have been made from one piece of skin. I'm pretty sure that you couldn't pull a single piece that big from Toothless, so it must be from a bigger dragon. While a different breed is one explanation, an older Night Fury is another plausible explanation. In context, it seems to be the more probable one.
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
 
Okay, let's start with a quote that defines Chekhov's Gun (the emphasis is mine):
Anton Chekhov
 

Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.

I like this quote the best because of that first sentence, which makes the whole concept more general, rather than tying it to objects being used.

In the case of Drago's cloak, we have two basic possibilities: either it's from a Night Fury or it isn't. Now, you have presented some evidence to suggest that it isn't from a Night Fury (which I'll get to in a moment), but let me ask you this: if it's from a different type of dragon, then why is it black? Now, the in-universe would be "because the dragon was black". Now, to be fair, this doesn't contradict anything. We haven't seen any other black dragons, but we also haven't been given any evidence that directly suggests that Night Furies are the only black dragons. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, Drago's cloak was definitely made black intentionally, and he was also designed for a movie that only featured one living black dragon. Outside of the possibility of it being Night Fury skin, what relevance would the colour of Drago's cloak have? The answer, as far as I can see, is "none". Even the argument of "because black = evil" (which, given that Drago is a very cliched villain, holds some merit) doesn't hold up under analysis, because the only black dragon in this franchise is one of the heroes, and the other hero is a guy who mostly wears black in this film (kudos to Dreamworks for giving the pair a similar colour scheme). In short, if the cloak is not made from a Night Fury, then it shouldn't have been black, as any dragon skin will do for showing that this guy is evil.

Now, if the skin is from a Night Fury, then that opens up possibilities. The most obvious one is if it turns out that Drago wiped out the last known nest of Night Furies (there are, of course, other possibilities, but they're tangential to the main point). Not only do we thus have an explanation for Toothless' "sole survivor" status, but we also have a purpose for the cloak being black, namely foreshadowing that little fact.

There are two facts that make this not just ideal, but probable. The first is that Drago was originally going to make his entrance in the third film, which, by all the information that I have seen, is going to deal with such things. The second is that Dreamworks use Chekhov's Gun (in various forms) a lot in their more serious films, mainly the HTTYD and Kung Fu Panda franchises.

Now, I'd just like to draw attention to the differences between Drago's cloak and Toothless' skin. In short, you are correct, in that they do not have the exact same texture and colour. However, it is worth noting that the cloak is obviously not from Toothless (well, unless Spitelout actually reveals himself to be the Doctor in the third film), and no two Night Furies need look exactly the same. I should also mention that, while I do have a very limited knowledge of sewing, the cloak appears to have been made from one piece of skin. I'm pretty sure that you couldn't pull a single piece that big from Toothless, so it must be from a bigger dragon. While a different breed is one explanation, an older Night Fury is another plausible explanation. In context, it seems to be the more probable one.
Going to touch on the differences between the cloak and Toothless first here. Agreed there is no reason any 2 Nightfuries have to look the same. Going into this I knew coloration would be arguable mostly because we have in cannon evidence of other color variations in other dragon species so there's no reason Nightfuries would be exempt from this rule. There's also no reason they wouldn't be either though so it comes down to being debatable. Then we come to scale difference though and this can't be ignored. There as of now is no evidence of scale variation in any species of dragons so far. So the defense that no two Nightfuries have to look the same ends here since as far as scale texture is concerned no dragon has had a varied scale difference. But this isn't an ironclad defense against the theory either, but as I said before it does give some credibility when I say there is reasonable enough doubt.

Now we can move on to Chekhov's Gun though. First off lets address the idea that this principal can erase all doubt because in short it can't. Lets also remember Chekhov was a playwright and author not a director or production designer. So because of this we have to keep in mind a movies visual ideas and the need to have the visual tone of the fantasy just right. This by no means however means they had to use a dragon skin cloak so case in point on this one. Moving on though while this principal is good for all forms of story telling it most certainly has more benefit to literary works then movies.

A book can specifically mention what it wants to draw attention to a movie has to do it differently either by making the item stand out or drawing attention to it by specific shots. Which is why I asked you what made you think this was an example of the gun. And you gave one by pointing out the movies emphasis on the contrasts between our hero/s and Villain. But the problem with this is do we need more emphasis on the contrasts between these characters. Personally I don't think so but this might just be me.

This isn't the only reason they could do this though, and you gave another good reason for it which was a plot reveal. On this plot reveal I'm going to ask why this is necessary or even important to the audience. Do we as the audience need more reason to see Drago as a villain? No I don't think so. Do we as an audience need an explanation as to why Toothless is the last Nightfury? Again no we don't. So why bother with this reveal at all.

It would be just as advantageous to leave it up to the audience to decide what happened to the Nightfuries and whether Toothless is the last or not. We also have the problem with this plot revel of it's relevance to the story. I don't know the third movies story but as it currently stands it's relevance can be argued. My whole point I suppose is that I don't disagree with the idea of this being an example Chekhov's Gun. I do however take issue with whether or not this gun should go off. Cause even with the reason you give for it and possible other reasons for it going off. The only real big plot reveal is Toothless is the last Nightfury. And is this something we really need to have an answer to? Wouldn't the movie be just as well if it left this up to the audience to decide?

This is an after thought but while going through this another thing occurred to me. Why have Drago kill a Nightfury nest. I mean it does go against his goal of controlling the dragons to achieve his other goal which is to rule. I mean this is also kind of up in the air but it's still a point that can be made. The last thing that really came to mind while writing this. Is that with evidence for and against this idea on both sides. Could we not also say that this could be an example of a Red herring. I mean it looks similar enough to plant the idea and yet it looks different enough to give doubt. This way you have people focused on the cloak and ready for a possible reveal that never happens. This is all just an after thought though. Either way there isn't enough evidence in my opinion to declare this one way or the other. Even with literary principals at play here there's no guarantee yet. So I suppose we'll have to wait and see what info were given as we near the release of the third movie.
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:
 
Then we come to scale difference though and this can't be ignored. There as of now is no evidence of scale variation in any species of dragons so far. So the defense that no two Nightfuries have to look the same ends here since as far as scale texture is concerned no dragon has had a varied scale difference. But this isn't an ironclad defense against the theory either, but as I said before it does give some credibility when I say there is reasonable enough doubt.
Actually, there is at least one occurrence (probably more, though I'd have to check) of variation in texture within a dragon species, and that is with baby Gronckles versus their adult counterparts. At least within HTTYD 2 (the most relevant source to this discussion) baby Gronckles have a much smoother texture than adult Gronckles. With this in mind, it is entirely reasonable, and even probable, that an older Night Fury would have a different texture to their skin than a younger one.
Quote:
 
Now we can move on to Chekhov's Gun though. First off lets address the idea that this principal can erase all doubt because in short it can't. Lets also remember Chekhov was a playwright and author not a director or production designer. So because of this we have to keep in mind a movies visual ideas and the need to have the visual tone of the fantasy just right. This by no means however means they had to use a dragon skin cloak so case in point on this one. Moving on though while this principal is good for all forms of story telling it most certainly has more benefit to literary works then movies.

A book can specifically mention what it wants to draw attention to a movie has to do it differently either by making the item stand out or drawing attention to it by specific shots. Which is why I asked you what made you think this was an example of the gun. And you gave one by pointing out the movies emphasis on the contrasts between our hero/s and Villain. But the problem with this is do we need more emphasis on the contrasts between these characters. Personally I don't think so but this might just be me.
The thing with the cloak is that it's a striking visual detail, one that DeBlois attention to through dialogue (Stoick mentioning it) and action (Drago using it to shield himself from Hookfang's fire). That draws the attention to it as much as any passage in a novel. Not only that, but the fact that the cloak is black is also a striking detail, because Toothless is the only black dragon we've seen in the entire franchise to date. That makes the audience remember it even more. In short, you not only have a gun, you have one with an instantly recognisable design. You'd be hard-pressed to find a clearer use of the concept outside of a Harry Potter novel.

It's also worth pointing out that DeBlois was the director and the writer of the second film, and, barring some very odd circumstance, will perform both roles through to the end of the third film. Therefore, he would have pretty much the first and last say on Drago's design, even if someone else may have done the bulk of the work on it. In short, DeBlois must have wanted Drago to have a black cloak (I can't imagine executive meddling on that one), and there must have been a reason for that. Heck, given that this is the guy who decided that the mysterious dragon rider had to be Hiccup's mother (in spite of a veritable dissertation I could write on why that should never have happened), he clearly likes to connect his characters together. Having Drago be linked, on some level, to the near-extinction of the Night Furies is very much in DeBlois' style.
Quote:
 
This isn't the only reason they could do this though, and you gave another good reason for it which was a plot reveal. On this plot reveal I'm going to ask why this is necessary or even important to the audience. Do we as the audience need more reason to see Drago as a villain? No I don't think so. Do we as an audience need an explanation as to why Toothless is the last Nightfury? Again no we don't. So why bother with this reveal at all.
Short answer: No. Drago doesn't need to be wearing black to be obviously evil, so there needs to be a reason why he has a black dragon skin cloak as opposed to some other colour. With it being a Night Fury skin, DeBlois could either give it some actual purpose to the plot, or at least give it a bit more emotional weight (because, across the entire audience, Night Furies would easily be their favourite dragon species).

Also, I could pretty much have brought up the same point in regards to what happened to Hiccup's mother. We didn't need to know, but DeBlois told us anyway, because ambiguity is clearly not one of his strong suits. I'm pretty darn sure we're going to have the Night Fury issue covered one way or another in the third film.
Quote:
 
This is an after thought but while going through this another thing occurred to me. Why have Drago kill a Nightfury nest. I mean it does go against his goal of controlling the dragons to achieve his other goal which is to rule. I mean this is also kind of up in the air but it's still a point that can be made. The last thing that really came to mind while writing this. Is that with evidence for and against this idea on both sides. Could we not also say that this could be an example of a Red herring. I mean it looks similar enough to plant the idea and yet it looks different enough to give doubt. This way you have people focused on the cloak and ready for a possible reveal that never happens. This is all just an after thought though. Either way there isn't enough evidence in my opinion to declare this one way or the other. Even with literary principals at play here there's no guarantee yet. So I suppose we'll have to wait and see what info were given as we near the release of the third movie.
1. For what it's worth, my full guess for the origins of Drago's cloak are as follows: in his token angsty backstory, his family was killed by a Night Fury. Drago was subsequently able to hunt down that Night Fury and kill it (possibly along with some other Night Furies), because there are very, very few people who are completely above the idea of the most basic form of revenge. Any thoughts of raising a dragon army come after that.

2. The key to making a red herring work is to make the truth better than the false lead. There are probably a fair few ways you can do this, though the two obvious ways are to make the truth more emotional, or to make it more intellectually interesting. How on earth is Drago killing some other random black dragon and wearing its skin supposed to be more emotionally powerful or more interesting than him killing and wearing a Night Fury? A plot twist just for the sake of a plot twist is not remotely satisfying to anyone other than M. Night Shymalan.

Honestly, it just comes down to one simple fact: there is no way its in there for no reason. Someone in production would have pointed it out, and any half-decent director knows that leading an audience (even unintentionally) down a somewhat interesting road, only to stop short or veer off into something far more boring, will just piss them off. Even I give DeBlois enough credit to assume he's better than that.
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
 
Actually, there is at least one occurrence (probably more, though I'd have to check) of variation in texture within a dragon species, and that is with baby Gronckles versus their adult counterparts. At least within HTTYD 2 (the most relevant source to this discussion) baby Gronckles have a much smoother texture than adult Gronckles. With this in mind, it is entirely reasonable, and even probable, that an older Night Fury would have a different texture to their skin than a younger one.
While this might be an example it's not the best one to use for reference. Reason being it's expected for there to be some growth and development changes from baby to adolescent/young adult. It's not usual (emphasis on the word usual) though to see it in adults. Even if it's a young adult by dragon standards it's still not common. But we're talking about dragons here so(unfortunately for me) we have to keep in mind that when it comes to writing about them what's generally accepted and what the author decides to invent up for their own stories purposes is ultimately up to them.(And allowed since lore on dragons at least in fantasy writing is just so open and often varied between authors.) With that in mind I'm still inclined to say there's been no evidence of this in adults yet if I'm remembering correctly. So with that said I'm back at the point of saying it seems both of these might be up for some debate. Unless we can find clear evidence of this happening in some of the older dragons in which case I'm standing on much less firm ground.
Cartoon Freak
 
1. For what it's worth, my full guess for the origins of Drago's cloak are as follows: in his token angsty backstory, his family was killed by a Night Fury. Drago was subsequently able to hunt down that Night Fury and kill it (possibly along with some other Night Furies), because there are very, very few people who are completely above the idea of the most basic form of revenge. Any thoughts of raising a dragon army come after that.

2. The key to making a red herring work is to make the truth better than the false lead. There are probably a fair few ways you can do this, though the two obvious ways are to make the truth more emotional, or to make it more intellectually interesting. How on earth is Drago killing some other random black dragon and wearing its skin supposed to be more emotionally powerful or more interesting than him killing and wearing a Night Fury? A plot twist just for the sake of a plot twist is not remotely satisfying to anyone other than M. Night Shymalan.
1: This had crossed my mind after making the point but after thought is an after thought. The revenge story is fairly tried and true but when has this movie strayed away from that.

2: Same thing really to a degree. I do think it could work but I'm no writer nor will I ever claim to be. So I'll be hard pressed to even be willing to defend this one to any degree other than mentioning it in passing.

Cartoon Freak
 
Honestly, it just comes down to one simple fact: there is no way its in there for no reason
Agreed, it's not there for no reason still yet I maintain that it's not the reason you claim. But ultimately this comes down to personal opinion I feel at least on my part. And while we can continue to discuss why the cloak and Toothless look different there's so far been an answer to both reasons on both sides so it remains for me at least up in the air. Which to be honest is where I'm stuck at. I could certainly argue the reason for the cloak to be the color it is although that's pointless since there is practically nothing backing me other than conjecture. I could even argue the reason for the cloak being there at all to. But after even a little thought I can tell that reason would come down to poor story telling on my part in which case there is no argument to make on it. Which leaves me at trying to argue personal opinion to a degree with some possible evidence against proven dramatic principal with possible evidence, and neither of us need to tell the other which one proves more right in that case.

Despite this though I still maintain my point, that this is a plot reveal that is better left ambiguous. But if this is what they decide to do then I can see they'll probably go down the line of protagonist has moral dilemma of whether or not to kill antagonist, and if that's the case I can about bet what they'll do to avoid him making the choice. In which case there's nothing wrong with that it makes for a decent story. I mean it worked for the lion king and no one should have to tell anyone how well that turned out. Hopefully this movie will turn out good to, but I don't know why it does but it just bothers me to a degree. Though if it does turn out that I'm wrong I'll gladly come back and apologize for wasting time until then I'll keep my opinion for now.

On the note of Apologies though, I feel I need to say sorry to Thenightandthefury for running away with the topic for possibly fairly little.
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  
 
Greyliminator
User avatar
Small home repairs viking

I still don't get why people think the cloak MUST have some sort of meaning. For all I care it's just there to underline him as a bane of dragons, and by extension it validates the capabilities to exert his dominion over the dragons that are his. It isn't very convincing to see an old dude with only one arm terrorizing dragons all by himself, so I presume they added some details to him to make it more plausible, one of which is a dragon skin to make him fireproof. What kind of leader of a dragon army would one be if he isn't fireproof?!
Quote:
 
But Grey, why then is it black!?! The only dragons that are black are nightfuries!
Yes, as pointed out as of yet we have not seen more black dragons in the HTTYD universe. But, in addition to that, black (or more like dark grey-ish) is one of the only colours that fit with Drago. I mean, sure, you can make him have a turqoise skin with orange stripes or whatever but you don't have to be a professional writer to know that that would look ridiculous on Drago.
Cartoon Freak
 
Honestly, it just comes down to one simple fact: there is no way its in there for no reason. Someone in production would have pointed it out, and any half-decent director knows that leading an audience (even unintentionally) down a somewhat interesting road, only to stop short or veer off into something far more boring, will just piss them off. Even I give DeBlois enough credit to assume he's better than that.
You should pay attention to, say, game designers then. They do it...

All. The. Freakin'. Time.



To sum it up, I'm not saying there's no possibility that it does have a narrative function*, I'm just saying there's a possibility that it does not have one.

*) I will not go into full detail as I feel that that has been thoroughly discussed above as to why it may serve a narrative purpose.
Um.. Hi?
  PM (offline)     Profile     Quote  
 
Demonwolf002
User avatar
Lone Dragon

Greyliminator
 
I still don't get why people think the cloak MUST have some sort of meaning. For all I care it's just there to underline him as a bane of dragons, and by extension it validates the capabilities to exert his dominion over the dragons that are his. It isn't very convincing to see an old dude with only one arm terrorizing dragons all by himself, so I presume they added some details to him to make it more plausible, one of which is a dragon skin to make him fireproof. What kind of leader of a dragon army would one be if he isn't fireproof?!
This is along the same line I was thinking as far as a reason for the cloak goes. But there are fair points to be made for the other side to.(as evidenced above) So I would say we'll have to wait and see either when the third movie comes out or as it gets closer if were given more info. And if it turns out were wrong well then were wrong. Either way it shouldn't really hurt the movie to much, although that may just be me.
Greyliminator
 
You should pay attention to, say, game designers then. They do it...

All. The. Freakin'. Time.
Not sure this is the best example to be honest. While this does happen it also is a different medium as well. While they are similar and the stories they tell are told in similar ways more often than not, they shouldn't be. Usually movies work best when they're following the show don't tell technique. This technique doesn't work as well with video games, though I also don't feel it has been adapted all that well either. Reason being games are interactive movies aren't and so games should tell there stories through there interaction not through showing their player something while taking away control. But this could be a whole other topic in and of itself.

Simply put (And another answer you'd end up getting if I don't say it now) most game designers aren't really story writers. So they tend to make mistakes most writers wouldn't have made. Saying that though there have been some amazing stories written by game designers who weren't full fledged writers,(at least in my opinion) but I would consider these the exception not the rule.
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  
 
Users browsing this forum:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
Print view
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · How to Train Your Dragon 3 · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2