User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151129191344

Not really just the Holocaust. For the war in general. Plus, the Allies didn't consider it to be a punishment. In theory, it was supposed to be able to let Germany rebuild, while also preventing them from starting another war. They didn't ask for a debt this time because of what happened after the first war. But another solution to prevent Germany from starting a third war was still needed. In theory, their plan would have worked. But as it often goes, practice has other ideas.

Plenty of cultures, both real and fictional, do that. Scars are seen as a sign you fought in battle. A battle that you can brag about if you won it, to show your courage and all that stuff. Plenty of people still do it nowadays because scars can make for a good story. Gobber himself does it as well in the movie, when on the watch tower when he tells the kids how he lost his limbs. Scars can make for a good war story.

All three of those enemies attacked them first. With war-hungry, I meant that they would attack other tribes for the sake of fighting. Like I said, cultures where people fight each other for various reasons aren't rare, especially in that era or world. They fight among their own to blow off steam, but not to the death. Its just considered a form of sports. And the Dragon Races and such replaced the action Vikings needed.

Once the Japanese leaders had agreed on their terms for surrendering, they would have opened negotiations. They hadn't done that yet, but were very close. One of those things they wanted inlcuded that the emporor was kept as a constutional monarch, for example. They suspected the enemy might get rid of the concept of the emporor as a whole. So they were discussing their terms first, before contacting their enemy for surrender.

I'd made an alliance with Iraq, instead of declaring war on them. Like I said, they were already fighting the same enemy. You're right that the deaths of innoscents cannot be fully avoided. But there wasn't a reason to attack all of Iraq, when the country already fought the same enemy. It doesn't make sense, no matter how you look at it. A three-way war only made things worse in the end, as it gave the terrorists an advantage. The US got rid of the Iraqi military. Without those in the way, the terrorists gained more freedom and territory. If the US had tried to make an alliance against their common enemy, things probably would have gone very differant. Instead, they just attacked without even trying to make one. And considering the invasion actually helped the terrorists more then it damaged them, I'm pretty sure its a failure. Because, in the end, it solved nothing and made things worse.

Like I said, revenge on a single person or small group makes sense. Revenge on millions of people of a nation is a very differant matter. Because then you're just killing to kill. The majority of the people have nothing to do with what you want revenge on. So ask yourself: is it worth it? Most of the people you kill are innoscent, the people you want revenge on might not even be in power anymore and people you have a vendatta against might have lost their positions. Revenge against one or two people works. An entire country...Yeah, that's problematic. And in the end, it usually makes things worse when talking country-wise. You want to take revenge on one person, but a million end up paying for it. And those people want revenge on you then.

Well, the US was in the first war. And they had a role in the debt of Germany. So...yeah, they had beef with America. In truth, no one has figured out why Hitler declared war on America. Its a stupid and illogical move, no matter how you look at it. We can guess, but that's about it.

Considering I live in a country that has suffered under the cruelty of the German invaders, and some war crimes (And not just the Holocaust) happened in it...Yeah, I do. Its even kind of a common opinion and way of thinking, that we shouldn't take revenge. If those countries had gotten revenge on Germany, then Germany would want revenge for what those countries did. And those countries would want revenge for that. It has to end sometime. If not, a cycle of war is created. Its the reason why revenge on a country doesn't work.

And that's the thing: there rarely is a good side or an evil side. If one side commits a war crime, I'm not seeing them as the good side, nor as the evil side. All I see is a side that wants to reach their goal. Not good guys fighting against evil. Again, the 'evil' side think they're the good guys. None one, no matter how evil the crimes they commit are, consider himselfs to be the bad guy. So that become's complicated when you narrow it down. You say that the good triumphs, but who is the good? That is sometimes easier to see then in other times, but its usually not clear-cut as both sides are convinced they're the good ones. Which is always the case.

I don't admire people who have to make tough sacrifices when there is no other choiche. But I don't hate them either. At most I may respect them. depending on the situation and goal. I'd only hate them if there are other options and they ended lives unnecerary. I don't appreciate needless bloodshed. But at the same time I don't admire people who are willing to accept colloteral damage either. At most I respect them. And there is a difference between those two.

Well, no. Not really. Something can be inspired by another scource, but not be a perfect copy of it. That isn't really rare or anything. The movie was inspired and based on the book. But it wasn't a true adaptation of the novel. It took some things from it (Such as the Vikings and Dragons and the concept of them sharing a world.), but that's it. The movie is slightly based on the books. But they're not the books. That's something you need to remember with media based on something else: They may be based on it, but they're not the same thing.

I already explained why some things were done the way they were. Why Hiccup was avoided. Why the Vikings wanted to kill Dragons. Why Stoick kept Hiccup away from the fights. Even the directors and Cressida Cowell explained some of the changes that were made. Besides, flaws that you find in the film and show that are not based on book-related reasons are always better then saying 'the book was better' or 'it went like that in the book'.

Pranksters, yes. But there's a difference between blowing up a boat and knocking down yaks. Even Tuffnut mentions they usually (If not always) get punished for their acts, which usually involves labor to make up for what they did wrong.

I would do too. But I don't support killing innoscents for the sake of 'returning the favor', just to satisfy feelings of vengeance. Sacricing innoscents for a higher goal or accidently killing them is very differant then just killing them because I blame them for something they didn't do. And I'm genuiley curious: why do you consider Hitler to be good untill he killed kids, even though the numerous horrible things he did before that? Many of his famous crimes were done before the war, like the Kristallnacht. Or what about the laws designed to promote racism?

I understand you have to make tough choiches. But I don't support simply killing out of revenge, and nothing else. In the Middle-East people were sometimes killed if there was no reason. No terrorist or enemy base. Just a US soldier who killed a random person simply for his ancestry. No greater goal or colloteral damage. There is nothing justified about that. If innoscent civvilains get accidently killed during the battle, that's a tragedy, but its also the cost of war. Simply killing innoscents out of revenge with no other motive is just slaughter and not war. Its what makes war so difficult: there usually is no good or evil side. Both are usually just as 'good' as the other. They both do evil things, and both believe its for the greater good or shrug it off as coletteral damage. America indeed fought against Japan to liberate other countries, but they also locked up American citizens with Japanese ancestors in prison camps because they were immidiatly deemed as 'traitors'. Which didn't help the war effor any way whatsoever. There are rarely good or bad sides. There are just sides.

They're the main characters of the show. So that still makes sense. The show without them would be like a Batman movie without Batman.

I agree on BarfBelch and Stormfly. But Meatlug and Hookfang also show enough emotion to set them apart from the rest. But I think it also has to do with intelligence. Numerous scources state that Night Furries are the most intelligent of all dragon species. They therefore naturally have more obvious personalities.

With 'really everything', I didn't mean interesting details. I quite literally meant really everything. For some reason, I don't think seeing Hiccup eating breakfeast, Astrid making her braid of Snotlout polishing his axe is that fun to watch. But I see your point.