How To Train Your Dragon 2

The worst part of this for me is that this puts me back in the same situation i was when i saw the first film.

HTTYD wasn't a bad movie in my eyes per se, it just wasn't a movie i'd watch over and over. The Holiday special started to get me more interested in the franchise when i first saw it and the TV Series only sealed that deal (for the most part that is). I was a bit worried when i found out about the "surprise twist" in HTTYD 2, but recently, i started to get over it. Now, i sort of like how that film ended.

At first, i found the fact that this franchise came from a book series to be a bit underwhelming (it took away some of the originality somehow), but now it seems be the very thing that unravels all that i like about this franchise. Everything that i liked about the franchise will soon be undone, and that's just so frustrating, especially now, when i have enough weighing on my mind.

They're just movies, you know.

Movies that did great things within the story, things that i would hate to see undone at the drop of a hat

It's not like having the dragons leave will reverse all the Character Development and changes to the status quo. In the end, the characters and their world will have been irreparably changed by the events of the series.

But without the dragons it won't be the same. The way things appeared to me, it felt like the results of Hiccup's actions were gonna last long after his grandkids reached adulthood (if he and Astrid ever got that far). But now, it seems it won't even last before Hiccup reaches old age

Ît's odd to me because the way the differences between the settings of the book and the movie mean that conclusion will have very different connotations. I've not read much of the books, but the simple difference of Hiccup having been born into the world of human/dragon interaction as apposed to being in the process of bringing it about himself means having all the dragons disappear at the end will mean very different things as the end of the story arc. In the latter, it frames the entire thing as something very tragic - as Hiccup has spend what I bet at that point will be the majority of his life trying to form a dragon/human society from basically nothing only to have that dream be lost. What's more, he's bridging the gaps between dragons and humans on both sides, which means the idea that dragons have just as far to go as the humans and their leaving will be more than just a sense that humans need to stop relying on them or something like that (that would be the most obvious means to go, but even that would have to be invented in between movies since the current movies don't support it).

In short, the fact that movie Hiccup is very fixated on creating a world that, ultimately, he has to lose is pretty sad, and I just hope they handle it well. Otherwise the films will feel like a big "Shaggy Dog" Story.

edited 26th Jun '14 12:45:02 AM by KnownUnknown

I think it really comes down to Dreamworks wanting their own "Toy Story 3".

With the movie underperforming in the U.S. I wonder if the third installment will even be made.

Since Mom says I can take the car and go out tonight, I'll most likely be seeing this in a few hours.

Just a speculation (and one that i'll likely be corrected on), but what if this whole "the Dragons leave" scenario is told something like this:

Hiccup is an old man at the end of his days, telling young vikings about the dragons, who only vanished a few years prior. Then, out of the blue, the dragons all return to live in harmony with the vikings again and Hiccup passes away shortly after with the happy thought of knowing that the dragons are back. As for Toothless and Stormfly, maybe Hiccup and Astrid pass them on to someone else before Hiccup's death.

Like is said, it's just a speculation

edited 26th Jun '14 5:58:49 PM by srebak

Saw it.

I was expecting a bit of a mature story, but even though the characters are 5 years older, the story was still simplified for everyone. This isn't too big a problem at all, but it turns out that after the Alpha indirectly kills Stoick (through Toothless), it seems like the 3rd act turned the tables around way too abruptly and we laugh again?? What? Your fath-er is dead! Hell, the second Act ended at the 70-minute mark and I was almost believing that the film ended right there, and that we'd leave on a dark cliffhanger the likes of the latter Harry Potter films, to be concluded in a third movie! Hell, I didn't even get to see any blood from Stoick's injuries!! Come on! I wanna see blood! Guuuuh...

Another problem I had was Hiccup himself. This is why I don't usually warm up to sequels, because the main character has already developed and become more of a whole person by the end of the first film! This would be fine for the sequel as long as a new conflict makes him grow more! His new CG model doesn't even look like him! He's redesigned for the fangirls to reblog pics of him on Tumblr!!! ....but we gotta sit through watching this Hiccup seeming so perfect and pure! He has no flaws anymore! He's got 100% esteem, the girl of his dreams, has changed the face of his whole village! Drago and Valka do make him learn more about the right ways to control nature..... but he did that already in the first film!! He's not identifiable anymore!!!!! Guuuuuuh again...

Overall, I was pretty good! I'm a sucker for cute animal antics.

edited 26th Jun '14 6:48:47 PM by Shota

If they were to show us Stoick's injury, there'd be a hell of a lot more than just blood.

Hiccup is perfectly recognizable. Also, I beg to differ about his having no flaws. His naivety concerning Drago costs him and others dearly.

Cop-out.

I just got back from the theater. Loved it, although I'm glad I went in knowing the spoilers. This thing would've fucked me up pretty badly otherwise. I'd skip the 3D, though. It doesn't really add much and mutes the colors.

Editing is your friend. They could shoot it in many ways just to see blood, without showing the actual injury.

1. How so

and

2. Well, I don't know if it was as much naivete as it was trying to find a non-violent solution, which makes sense, seeing as he ended the war with the dragons without having to fight (the most he did was shoot down Toothless, after that, his ending the war was due to studying the dragons and passive research of their habits)

For me, at least, just seeing the body was enough. It didn't need blood to be horrifying.

Starting to have a nice, bittersweet ending and then going "Just kidding!" As for your second point, did you not see the climax of the first one? He most certainly did have to fight.

edited 26th Jun '14 8:00:44 PM by Mort08

1. Not if done right; by which i mean, Hiccup and the others save the day, thanks to the dragons and then bid them farewell, or something like that. That would seem sad, but when the dragons come back, it would be genuinely touching moment

2. He also tried to reason with Drago a second time around the same point

1. Why would they come back? Why would it somehow be suitable for the dragons to live in the world of man again just because one human died? It makes no sense, AND it's the exact opposite of how the series has handled these sorts of things, so suddenly boom the dragons are back would throw the whole series' reputation in the toilet for a cheap feel-good ending.

2. And he still failed. The only reason Berk was saved was because Toothless developed Godzilla powers out of nowhere.

edited 26th Jun '14 8:47:51 PM by maxwellelvis

1. First, like i said, it was just a speculation. Second, if it did happen, maybe it would have something to do with the dragons' loyalty or something

2. I'm just saying, Hiccup didn't seem naive, just looking for a peaceful way of handling things, he did that with the dragons after all, who are more dangerous than Drago by the way

If the dragons have to leave, then there's a good reason for it, something that overturns "loyalty" as a motivating factor. Perhaps the lands around Berk can no longer support them: maybe the fish they eat are dying out, maybe it's become too cold for them; they are reptiles after all. Either way, if this were the kind of movie where bittersweet endings were overturned, Hiccup wouldn't have lost his leg and Stoick would still be alive.

Second, but he was still shown as in the wrong about Drago the whole time. The movie very clearly sides with Stoick on the issue.

I think Toothless getting a shonen level-up was going along the lines of what Valka said. Dragons have so many mysterious that Berk have yet to discover!

I'm serious about those being "Godzilla powers", too. The moment I saw that blue glowing I could tell, I thought "He's gonna do the Nuclear Pulse", and then Toothless's spines started glowing blue.

That or Toothless is finally starting to get fanwanked by the movie's own creators. I figured it was only a matter of time since they adapted Hiccup's dragon from the book into an entirely new and larger species that trumps all the others barring the alphas until now, at least. And come on. "Night Fury: Son of Lightning and Death" honestly sounds like something a 10 year old fan would come up with and insert into the setting as his avatar which of course overshadows everyone else in awesome.

edited 27th Jun '14 12:14:12 AM by nervmeister

It also sounds like something a gang of Vikings might believably call a powerful force they don't understand, so that doesn't bug me in the least.

Also, Toothless isn't a self insert side-character taking over the plot. He's the Deuteragonist. And while I have some issue with the way the final battle comes down to Toothless without Hiccup, Hiccup's influence is prominent enough over the rest of the movie that it's still balanced out - in fact, one of my main issues with the moment is that it's the first time in the movie that Toothless really gets his own individual presence, and he probably should've been given more focus at some point earlier in the movie to set it up further.

I disagree. One of the things I liked about this movie in general was how Hiccup's desire for diplomacy was portrayed - he's ultimately unable to convince Drago, but at no point does he ever give up on the concept of peacekeeping - he just learns to balance diplomacy with the need to fight as the situation requires. His attempts may have been for naught, but the movie doesn't exactly portray him as wrong for wanting to try - rather, it displays Stoick and Valka's attempts to dissuade him with minimal actual explanation (Stoick actually has to be pushed into giving a reason why, and Valka doesn't even bother) as leading to issues.

edited 27th Jun '14 12:34:04 AM by KnownUnknown

Hiccup isn't necessarily wrong in wanting to use diplomacy to reason with Drago, but he does approach the situation rather naively. He just assumes the reason for why Drago wants to attack is prejudice against the dragons, like his father in the first movie, and assumes that Drago will relent if he sees the way humans and dragons are able to coexist in Berk, despite the fact that he know nothing about Drago.

@ Shota: I strongly disagree that Hiccup doesn't look like himself or that the change was done to pander to the teenage girls in the audience. The obvious mercenary decision here would have been to keep Hiccup exactly the same and repeat his struggles from the last movie, not to make him older and face different problems. Also, what changes he's gone through are perfectly realistic - a lot of scrawny teens do turn unexpectedly handsome in the span of five years around the time they go through puberty.

edited 27th Jun '14 5:21:00 AM by DrDougsh

Hiccup's sudden change of appearance doesn't bother me, it seems plausible for puberty. Astrid's does. What happened to her eyebrows? And why is her head so much wider? I kept getting Hey Arnold! vibes.