User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151222124047

I wouldn't really call it when it suits them. Hiccup ended the war and saved everyone, while proofing there was another way. The Vikings, with some exceptions like Mildew, finally saw Hiccup was right and therefore changed their ways.

Especially in older cultures and honor codes, it was considered to be normal. Take mediëval Knights for example. Sure, they swore that fancy oath of being polite and defending the innoscent and weak and such. But in practice, most were just corrupt warlords that only used those ideals when it suited it them. It was the way things were back done, which isn't an excuse and it wasn't right. But its simply how things were. They were called Dark Ages for a reason. Cheating was simply considered to be 'Victory at any cost'.

Like I said, Saddam wasn't stupid. But the terrorists threatened his authority and rule, and brought anarchy in Iraq. He wanted order and peace to return. With help of the US, that could have been made a reality. He had made alliances before with orginisations and people that can be described at uneasy, but he didn't end up backstabbing them. Saddam didn't have any reason to go to war against the US, untill the they gave it to him. Was he a ruthless ruler? Yes. But he was far from an idiot. The terrorists were a threat, one he wanted removed.

Not really. Before the war, the US and Iraq itself weren't at odds. They didn't have any special relationship whatsoever. An alliance between the two wouldn't put them at odds. They would just work together against a common enemy. Once that enemy was removed, they'd part ways and hold neutral relations again. They both got what they wanted, and that was it. Alliances like that aren't that weird. If they had made an alliance and defeated the terrorists, why would they be at odds at each other afterwards?

Yeah, that probably would have been for the best.

"It was necessary and it is more glorious than what you'll ever do in your life." Ignoring the insult here, you said it there.

Why would they wanted it both ways? Hitler was their leader and the one that made Germany great. The Americans, Brittish, French and Russians were evil bastards who held them back. Eveyone else was inferior and couldn't be counted as a human being unless they had some sort of connection to Germany. Granted, there were Germans who were against Hitler and how he did things and some of his officers even attempted to assinate him and some high-ranked generals of his. That shows that just because someone come's from a certain country, doesn't mean they share the same morals and goals. Its a pity those officicers failed in killing Hitler though. The bomb had been moved slightly...Enough for the plan to fail.

So? That's not really their choiche. I think an Iraqi civillain who just heard his family was killed purely because the American soldiers wanted to blow of steam on them because they were unable to kill the actual terrorists, would hate the American soldiers with a passion. And honestly, could you really blame him? He wouldn't be an Iraqi bastard then. He would be a man who just lost everything and has every right to be furious at the injustice that was bestowed on him.

That is indeed an improvement.

He did, actually. Its right in the opening of the film. He almost wrecked the village by disobeying orders, and its heavily implied this wasn't the first time. If I would accidently let a gigantic torch that's on fire roll through my town, I'm quite sure people wouldn't like me. If I would do it multiple times and not learn anything from my mistakes, they would hate and avoid me because I'm trouble. The Berkians were wrong to completely avoid Hiccup and look down on him. But their frustrations are understandeble and its obvious where their views are coming from.

Agree on Fishlegs, but not on Astrid. She was the one who eventually made Hiccup stay on Berk. If she hadn't followed Hiccup, he would have left and the war would have continued for God knows how long.

Astrid does have her reasons to act like she did in the first film. Her clan had been disgraced by her uncle, and she wanted to restore the Hofferson family honor. And she was the only one who took Dragon Training seriously. The Twins were to busy fighting, Snotlout cared more about his image then actually learning how to defend his people and Fishlegs and Hiccup spended more time talking then paying attention. She was the only one that realised that they would be fighting in the war one day as well, and that they would need to learn how to fight in order to defend themselves and their people. In the end, peace was made before they had to follow into their parent's footsteps. But I still applaud her for taking the situation seriously.

I already explained why butted in. And killing predators on sight isn't so weird, especially if those animals are the one's attacking first. In the actual era, every wolf, bear, fox or other predator was usually seen as a threat to either people or livestock and killed on sight. So really, the Berkians' behavior isn't that odd for the time it takes place in. And again, for the longest time, everyone believed dragons couldn't be reasoned with. And yeah, the Dragons are trying to survive as well. But so are the Vikings. They considered their own survival to be more important to that of the dragons, which is understandeble. You would consider you and your family's own survival to be more important then those wolves, wouldn't you?

I think the Red Death in the film wasn't evil per se, but that is just how the species works. It qonquers a nest and forces the residents to feed it, or they'll end up being eaten. The Red Death wasn't really evil, but it was a parasitic species. The Bewilderbeasts in general are a polar opposite to that, as they defend the dragons under their rule and care for them. Even the Dragonpedia states that. I think that the Red Death was most likely the only one in the region, as I think they would have noticed otherwise if there was another one.

And I think that after the events with the Outcasts and Berserkers, Berk became more careful with whom they share Dragon Training with. Gobber mentions in HTTYD2 that not everyone would use Dragon Training for peace, and that its best to keep it a secret in order to prevent individuels from Dagur and Alvin to become more powerful. They aren't mentioned by name, but I think its heavily implied they're talking about them. I think there are still Tribes out there that fight Dragons, but not on a war-scale level.

Quite sure that without enough food, it doesn't matter how fat or skinny you are. But I see your point.

Not per se. Stoick was convinced by Gobber that sheltering Hiccup would only backfire in the long-run, and that the boy needed to learn how to defend himself, as Stoick wouldn't always be there to protect him. In Stoick's point of view, he was doing Hiccup a favor that would benefit him. Everyone had to fight in the war. Mildew is a farmer, yet he fought dragons when he was younger. Gobber is a blacksmith, yet he still fights when he's needed. Bucket and Mulch are fishermen, yet also fought. Even Gothi once took part in the fight when she was younger. Not fighting was a luxery that the Tribe couldn't afford. They simply needed everyone to defend the village. Hiccup wasn't given a special privilege.

And that is why I don't consider the Americans to be the villains OR heroes in the war. They had the good intentions of stopping the terrorists. But they used to many questioneble and cruel, some even downright evil, methods and excuses to get their way. That's why I consider it to be a very gray war in which only the terrorists are the clear-cut villains. And that's exactly what war usually is: gray.

Its quite simple, really. Again, the example with the helicopter. There were no terrorists or Iraqi soldiers there, nor a base of some sort. It was just a village of civillains. Yet they were killed on purpose with no goal that was related to defeating or crippeling the terrorists. It was needless bloodshed that could have been avoided, and the time and resources could instead have been used to track down and fight the actual terrorists. Bombing a location where the terrorists' HQ is can be understood. Bombing some random farm or village in the middle of now where where the terrorists aren't active isn't. Its a waste of time, resources and lives. And it could have been avoided.

The Iraqi civilains and terrorists are enemies. So really, you're just doing the terrorists a favor by killing them. You're not returning the favor or setting a score, because they don't give a damn about the people you kill. It doesn't weaken or cripple them in the slightest, because they have killed Iraqi civillains as well. By elimanting the number of people that can stand in the terrorists way, you're making their job easier. And again, time that you spend on killing innoscents is time they use to set their plans into action.

So Hitler sends out an army to the former territories, an army that believes they are superior to other countries...Yet somehow they don't end up killing anyone? Hitler invaded Polen. People die during invasions. Do you honestly think he spared any civillains in their way, or that Polen didn't fight back? There are plenty of reports of how the locals were treated and killed by the Nazi soldiers, such as arresting random men and lining them up against walls as an example to all.