User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151216231026

I’m explaining why people think that way. I’m not saying I agree with it. Its perfectly possible to understand a differant point of view, without agreeing with it.

There is a difference between being violent and war-hungry. The Vikings like action and a good fight under certain circumstances. All out war is a differant story. If the Berkians were war-hungry barbarians that declared war for the sake of declaring war, they would have been at war with the Outcasts and god’s knows who else for a long time. And no, that isn’t how their honor code works. Each culture has its own opinion of what honor is. To Nordic cultures, its never giving up, not showing weakness and not avoiding battles. Its a cultural difference.

Just because an opinion or statement is popular and common, doesn’t make it true. There are plenty of examples, though not all relevant to the topic. There are plenty of historians who agree that Japan had to be bombed, but there are also plenty who confirm what I said.

Yeah. A number. And if the US hadn’t spend time fighting against the Iraqi military, it could have been a lot more. Their chanches of defeating them for good would have increased. The Iraqi military had exsperience fighting the terrorists and had useful intel about their enemy and the territory the battles took place on. Like I said, an alliance would have meant more soldiers, more resources, more money, more weapons, more influence, more territory and much more. How is that a bad thing?

In the end, the terrorists won. Without the Iraqi military who had fought them for so long, they gained more territory, power, influence, resources and freedom then ever before. Heck, the rise of IS was made entirely possible because the US elimaneted the people that used to keep them in check.

And in the mean time, you’re ending lives and ripping apart families, leaving behind orphans and widows wherever you go. You’re killing people who had nothing to do with it for your own selfish desires. It makes you just as worse as what you’re hunting. Sometimes, taking revenge makes things worse then they were before. If that’s the case, maybe you should take the option that leads to the least amount of deaths.

Except those people weren’t ‘their’ civillains. The terrorists were their enemies as well. So that wasn’t returning the favor at all, seeing how those people nor their goverment had anything to do with it. They never harmed American civillains, and had no intention of doing so either. The terrorists did. And they won in the end. Because the US was to busy killing innoscents, instead of focusing on the real threat.

Except those countries that they fought against during the war, like Germany, weren’t allowed to joint he League. Even the US itself didn’t join. And I find it weird you speak so highly of him. You claim vengeance is the right way, and you’d happilly kill innoscent people for your own ends. Something he dissaproved off.

Snape and Batman comitted questionable acts for a greater goal that ended up saving people. They didn’t slaughter thousands of innoscent people for their own selfish desires of revenge.

They’re really not. Like I said, if Japan was ready to surrender any moment, it was an unnecery slaughter. Depends on how you look at it.

He thought that the world would be better everyone would believe in the Islam, and embrace Allah’s existence. With that in mind, he did things even he admitted were brutal. But he believed it was the right thing to do, as he thought it would all be worth it in the end. Everyone he killed and everything he destroyed was a sacririce, collotaral damage, for what he considered to be a good goal that would make up for his actions. And Hitler isn’t any differant. We know he’s insane and evil. But he never thought of himself as that. He saw himself as a great hero and leader. Nobody thinks of themselves as evil or insane. Hitler believed that he was doing was right, and that eveything he did would pay of in the end.

They’re not dumbasses. They’re just humans. And I’m not cynical. I’m realistic. People rarely view themselves or their goals as evil or wrong. At most, they may think their actions are questioneble, but they’ll believe it will be worth it in the end. And there are plenty of factors that decide that. Point of view being one of them. Ask a US citizen, and they’ll say the soldiers that went to Iraq are heroes. Ask an Iraqi civillain, and he’ll say that the US soldiers are monsters that slaughtered his family as a form of punishment for something he never did. Bring up 9/11, and he’ll be downright pissed. He’s an enemy of the terrorists too after all. Yet he suffers for something they did.

Actually, the books and movie have the same problems. You keep saying that Movie!Hiccup is to forgiving and selfless. Yet Book!Hiccup was treated worse then his film counterpart and forgave them anyways, even Snotlout who had attempted to kil land backstab him multiple times. Both the Hooligan tribes don’t apologize to Hiccup. Sure, they accept him as their savior and hero (And king in the novels) but they never apologise. Even Valhallarama says she can’t regret or apologise for neglecting her family so much. Both Stoicks are very stubborn and often don’t listen to their sons, and tend to decide what’s best for them without their say in the matter. So some of these problems are quite identical.

Also, Book!Hiccup was treated way worse then his movie counterpart for the following reasons.

-In the film, people attend Dragon Training in order to learn to defend themselves. Its a war and if you don’t learn how to fight, your survival is slim. If you don’t succeed in reaching the final exam, there are no qonsquences. In the novels, the rite of passage is used because ‘only the strong can belong’ and there is no place for ordiniary people. And if you fail, you get exiled to an island full of cannibals. Even Hiccup himself points out ridicilious the tradition is.

-Movie!Hiccup was verbally humilated. But his book counterpart got psychially abused as well by Snotlout and his goons. I’ve never been hit by someone with bronze-tipped sandals, but I think it hurts. Just a thought.

-In the movie universe, the weakest of the litter is called Hiccup. This happens in the novels too. But in addition to that, the baby also gets abonded in the woods or at sea in order to die.

-Once Hiccup proved himself as a hero, the people of Berk started to respect him as their hero and savior in the film. In the novels, Hiccup saves them from two Seadragons, a Roman invasion, an Exterminator attack and much more. Yet it takes them eight books to realize that maybe Hiccup isn’t so useless afterall.

I already answered everything you said about him being abusive. The reason he scolded Hiccup, why kept him away from the fights, why he eventually allowed him to join Dragon Training, why did and said certain things etc.

And honestly, if an armed enemy runs up to you in order to kill you, would you lay down your weapon and allow yourself to get killed? It was war, and rarely saw dragons out of combat. Hiccup was the first person to figure out dragons could be befriended. And that was because of luck. If he had never shot down Toothless, or killed him instead or never went back to the cove, he would be just as clueless as the rest of his tribe. The dragons were dangerous enemies, one everyone thought peace was impossible with.

The logic of someone who lives in a non-English speaking country and therefore makes mistakes when typing in said language. Honestly, I’d like you to see type huge blocks of text in Dutch without a single mistake.

In some cultures, humiliation is seen as a harsh, but effective way of preventing someone from making the same mistake and learning from it. Stoick was harsh, there’s no denying that. But think about it: Hiccup had put lives in danger, let the dragons escape and endangered the food supply by ignoring orders. He had put the village in danger. He still got of lucky.

Stoick said Hiccup isn’t a dragon killer. Not that he’ll never be good enough or never was. He only talked about dragon killing which, lets face it, Hiccup sucked at. Stoick was simply telling the truth and he was right: Hiccup wasn’t a dragon killer. If someone tells me I’m a lot of things but not a good soccer player, he would simply be stating the truth.

I’ll still defend the innoscent people you or anyone else would slaughter in cold-blood for your own selfish desires. I don’t care about excuses of collotoral damage. You want revenge? Then leave out innoscent people. Otherwise, you’re a selfish person who only cares about revenge and has no regards for anyone else, as long as they get their way. You become what you’re hunting.

And you consider yourself to be justified and moralistic, when you wouldn’t lift a finger when people get slaughtered for no reason at al land you know that? And wow, really? I defend a bunch of CGI Vikings. I’m a terrible person. You literally just admitted you want to hang out with a bunch of trigger-happy people who admit they take pleasure in slaughter, doesn’t matter who it is (Even children, which I recall you were against at, were targeted on purpose without a higher goal) and don’t even try to hide the facts they’re racists who kill out of xenophobic reasons. Yeah, your moral code seems to lack a lot of morals. Most people wouldn’t consider racism to be a good trait.

You’re once again contradicting yourself. You just admitted you would kill innoscents who aren’t responsible for something in order to return the favor and no other reason, and wouldn’t lift a finger when innoscents are slaughtered for no reason. That’s differant from unintentionally killing people for a higher goal. You kill innoscents and allow them to be killed on purpose with no higher goal. That doesn’t exactly fit the ‘I’ll avenge myself on the one’s responsible, no matter the cost’. That fits more under the ‘I’m gonna kill people fort he sake of killing them’ category.

Those territories were currently under rule of other countries. Hitler invaded those countries to get it back. How did he do that? With armies and weapons. I honestly doubt the people who had the bad luck of living near the border got out alive. Because, y’know, armies tend to do that when they invade. Especially an army of people who believe they’re superior to everyone else.

I’m not saying its flawless. It has flaws. I’m merely explaining the reason behind those flaws. Like I said, its perfectly possible not to agree with something, yet understand it.