User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24865409-20151221111737

@ Megadracosaurus

At least the Book Vikings are portrayed as horrendous through and through until they truly start to change their ways. And until then, we aren't supposed to really root for them.

The Movie Vikings just change their ways when it suits them, and we're expected to root for them because the Movie-Verse just beats around the bush and is quick to classify them as "Good Guys" despite all they've done.

In short, at least the Books honestly present them as grey characters, while the Movies present them as mostly in the white.

Which is one of the problems I have with the Movies. Until HTTYD 2 that is, because they were turned into characters we can actually care about there.

And regarding your second point, I'm disgusted that anyone would condone cheating and gloating. Most people on this Earth would not condone it, and they're right to do so.

The winners of World War 2 may have contained some ambiguous morals in their ranks - but they are still the Good Guys.

Or would you rather side with the Axis?

"I would too. But I wouldn't kill his targets or any other people around him."

Since when does taking revenge equate to intentionally hurting what is NOT your target?

Sheesh.

"Saddam wasn't a good or fair ruler to his people."

More than enough reason NOT to ally with him.

"It didn't even had to be a permanent alliance: as soon as the terrorists were defeated, Iraq and the US could have gone their separate ways again."

Having an alliance is stupid if you're just gonna be at odds after you finish off a common enemy.

"Saddam wanted the terrorists gone."

That doesn't add up to you saying that he wasn't a good ruler. Honestly.

"I don't think you share the same opinion about an American soldier becoming best buds with an Iraqi soldier."

I do actually aprrove of it, as long as both of them are doing it for the RIGHT reasons.

"I was talking about revenge on a personal level, not connected to the topic about terrorists."

And I was talking about revenge in a huge-scale event such as war.

Maybe we should have been more clear about our points to each other before we went at each other throats while disussing this topic.

"Now they're on the run."

Yes, we've got those bastard terrorists on the run up to this day.

"War is never glorious."

I never said that, for goodness' sake!

Honestly, why do you keep pulling it out of nowhere that I said that?

That's just taking away your credibility.

"How many German people didn't support Hitler because they saw him as a hero, and viewed the Americans, Russians and other Allies as evil?"

Those Germans can't have it both ways.

"And how many Iraqi civilians do you think viewed the American soldiers as evil barbarians?"

Hey, they're the ones living in a terrorist-filled country.

"Good guys have also been evil and cruel at times."

At least the Good Guys actually fight for what's right.

Evil on the other hand... just doesn't.

"He would be pissed that he and his loved one's are blamed for it."

Hmm... that's true.

"I don't think the movies paint them as that either. You can understand their motives at most, but I wouldn't call them sympathetic or innocent."

And that just leads back to several of my problems with HTTYD 1.

First of all, if the Berkians aren't sympathetic, then we shouldn't be rooting for them at the climax.

And if they aren't sympathetic - and they are NOT sympathetic - people shouldn't be excusing any of their actions or sympathizing with them.

Hiccup's the hero, not them.

And more praise goes again to HTTYD 2 for realizing that these movies are a fantasy and taking liberties to make sure that we CAN care for all of them the second time around.

The 2nd Movie knew what it wanted to be and followed through with it, unlike the 1st Movie.

"Like I said, the problem with Hiccup came from both ways."

You can't back that up.

Hiccup is entirely sympathetic when compared to them.

He never did anything wrong.

If he did, it was NEVER shown in the Movie.

All that the Movie showed was everybody (except Gobber and Toothless) hating/bullying/criticizing him until he saved their stupid asses.

And just siding with someone because they saved your stupid butt isn't enough of a reason to make people root for you.

"Fishlegs never came from Berk in the first place, and neither does Camicazi. So that particular naming tradition is invalid for them, because the name Hiccup is exclusive to Berk. And I said 'weakest', not 'smallest'."

I wasn't talking about names.

I was talking about how in the Books, Hiccup, Fishlegs and Camicazi can relate to each other because of their eccentricities, small size, and pointed weaknesses. They stick up for each other and back each other up, and they appreciate the friendship that they share.

The Movies butcher that by turning Fishlegs into a stereotypical gentle-giant-nerd who does not stick up for Hiccup, and the Movies turn Camicazi into the average aloof hrigh-ranking female called Astrid who is won over after the male underdog impresses her.

Honestly, you could remove Movie Fishlegs and the plot wouldn't differ significantly.

And Hiccup and Astrid's romance was so forced in the first movie. She just became his girlfriend after some screentime with him and his Night Fury. Despite the fact that they're polar opposites.

And you could also remove Astrid from HTTYD 1 and again, the plot wouldn't differ too much.

"And I like Astrid and Camicazi equally because I don't consider them to be the same person."

What is there to like about pre-HTTYD 2 Astrid?

Honestly, before HTTYD 2 and Race to the Edge, Astrid was violent, jealous, quite prideful at times, and not to mention that her relationship started with Hiccup only because he took her for a ride. I also feel the need to mention that her excessive violence goes undealt with, and at times she is presented as flawless.

Cami, on the other hand, is a nod to female characters who come from an historical era when females weren't held in as much high regard as men were. She often serves as the reminder that whether you are boy or girl, you are equal.

She can be self-defensive, at times using her words as attacks rather than her sword (something that pre-HTTYD 2 Astrid should learn). And she has flaws that are actually portrayed as a hindrance, like falling into the childlike "I want this" trap, as seen in the climax of Book 4. But she actually learns from her mistakes.

In all honesty, Camicazi is a much better female character and role-model than Astrid (from before RTTE and HTTYD 2) ever will be.

"The Vikings attitude wasn't 'I don't understand it and therefore its bad' when it came to dragons."

So when Hiccup tried to show them how to tame a dragon the first time, why did they butt in and make everything worse?

And that attitude didn't apply just to dragons - it also applied to Hiccup and Valka.

"You're attacked, and you either run away, hide, or fight back."

We're continuing to wage an endless war with animals that could probably resolved in other ways.

I would vote for trying to find an alternative way when we're not fighting - rather than just going out continuously and using the same stupid tactic over and over even when it's not working.

"And giving how Viking culture works, they would fight back."

Yes, but waging a centuries-long war with animals is stupid.

They can and SHOULD try to find another way.

"If a bunch of wild predators like wolves would attack your home, I highly doubt you would just stay and watch while they wreck the place."

True.

BUT that does NOT mean I'm going to fight an endless and pointless war against wolves.

I am going to ask someone to find an alternative way to solve the problem that would guarantee little to no loss of life.

Those wolves are just trying to survive as well.

"And it wasn't 'just a big battle' or even the defeat of a big Dragon that got Hiccup respect. He ended a 300-yr war no one thought would ever end. That's why they started respecting him. If you win a big battle, you get respect. End the entire war the battle is part of, and you get even more respect."

First of all, that was could have ended if they had tried different ways.

Second, regarding that respect bit, how long will it last?

In the show, they've fluctuated from being with Hiccup to against Hiccup on a whim.

And regarding about ending the war - aren't there any other Red Deaths or Bewilderbeasts out there that aren't benevolent by nature? And aren't there other tribes still fighting against the dragons? What has been done about these problems? Or have the Berkians just disregarded them?

"Stoick said it right at the beginning. Its almost winter and he has to feed an entire village."

Stoick didn't say how much food was stolen. And judging by the looks of the tribe, they COULD deal with a bit less feeding.

Not to mention the scene where it's explained how low the food supply is was cut from the movie, making it non-canon.

As far as the audience knows, Stoick's statement is an offhand comment vented in frustration.

"He didn't say Hiccup is useless at everything, just dragon killing. Which was true."

Then he abusively forced Hiccup into dragon training the moment Hiccup realized he was right.

And some of his comments have all but said that Hiccup is useless.

Don't you remember...

"All those years of the worst viking Berk has ever seen!"

And...

"I almost gave up on you!"

Not to mention that he says those lines with complete nonchalance and disregard of Hiccup's own feelings.

"Then sort it out with the people who are guilty and leave out the innocents."

You know what? Fine. I'll do that.

But I don't care if my other allies use the same sort of method I do.

"You said you would like to hang out with soldiers who admit they killed innocents out of pleasure or for racist reasons."

Okay, let me straighten my point out.

Between choosing the terrorists or choosing said soldiers who fight against the terrorists, I'd choose the soldiers obviously.

"They were pushed at their limit after all."

To be honest, they WERE NOT pushed past their limit. So their behaviour wasn't acceptable.

And I will concede that that is disgusting behaviour.

"I said I don't condone the killing of innocent people when it isn't necessary or can be avoided, or attacking the wrong people simply for revenge. If it really can't be avoided, its a tragic loss and hard sacrifice for the greater good. But if it wasn't, I don't condone it."

And what do you mean by "can be avoided"?

There will always be innocent lives lost in an invasion, or a bombing.

So I don't know what you mean by "can be avoided".

"Heck, many people consider Hitler's invasion of Poland to be the start of WW2."

The invasion of Poland was the start of WW2, not because Hitler used lethal force (he didn't) to take it back, but because the British and French had promised to defend Poland.

And I'm pretty sure taking back the other territories belonging to other territories wasn't done lethally either, otherwise it would have been mentioned in at least one of the history books I've read.

"I just explained its flaws. When did I say it was already perfect? Granted, I think its a good film. But I would be lying if I said its perfect."

HTTYD 1 had flaws, alright.

Flaws that could have been preventable if it had better writing like HTTYD 2 and/or the Books.

And yeah, HTTYD 1 is a good film, but it's overrated.

And I wasn't talking about HTTYD 1 in the last point of my previous argument.

I was talking about the TV Show.