User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24865409-20151204053216

"It actually almost happened. It just wasn't Germany that was the threat this time."

About World War 3...

First of all, if it didn't happen - it didn't happen.

And if Germany wasn't a threat that time, didn't that just prove my point?

"You may find it stupid, but some see it as a way of showing of how well they can fight or how brave they are."

It is stupid.

Smart people would know not to brag about fights where they got scars and/or injuries.

And aren't you the one that's making a point about trying to avoid fights here?

"That's just Viking culture. They see battle as a way to gain honor. They weren't the only culture who had that. And yeah, that's what makes the Races fun in the Viking's opinion. A lot of freedom and contact. They're a warrior culture, after all."

So are the vikings in these movies peace-loving or war-loving?

Your logic and the movies' logic about this point is confusing the s**t out of me.

And didn't they have any rule about fairness in their honour code?

Because cheating in the dragon races isn't honourable.

"An American historian will look at things differently then a Japanese one, or a Dutch or Indonesian. And the things I told you aren't well-known for the same reasons America isn't so eager to share the fact they locked up American citizens of Japanese ancestry in prison camps, or that Iraq could be a potential ally in the war against terrorism."

I live in New Zealand, and we import a lot of history books from all over the world. And all the history books (not just American history books) say that Japan was either taking too long to surrender or were not willing to.

And most of the history documentaries that I've watched that cover America's actions in WW2 actually show that they locked up American citizens of Japanese ancestry. And hey, while it wasn't entirely right to do so, the fact is is that it wasn't as bad as the treatment of Jews in the holocaust.

I disagree about Iraq being a potential ally in the fight against terrorism.

"How much time, lives and resources were wasted on the Iraqi military, that could be used on the terrorists?"

We were killing a number of terrorists, so the invasion of Iraq wasn't entirely for nothing.

"So why is attacking a potential ally who didn't even attack you in the first place a good idea again?"

If the terrorists hail and operate from that country, I'd say go ahead and attack that country.

"Then I highly doubt you are as morally righteous as you claim to be, if you are willing to let thousands suffer just so you can get revenge for something they didn't do."

Hey, I said if they just happened to get in the way, that's unfortunate.

But we must do what must be done. Revenge.

"They were just killing innocent people for the sake of killing them, taking their revenge on those who had nothing to do with it and couldn't fight back. Or is that also collateral damage in your book?"

You need to ask me? You know I'll just say collateral damage.

"If a black person would shoot a family member of you, would you start killing random black people all over the place simply because you want revenge and hope you'll shoot the right one eventually?"

Yes. Yes I would. I'm bound to kill the right guy sometime.

"Remember the now removed video I talked about? About US soldiers opening fire at civilians on a market with no enemy soldier or base in sight? What's that then? Also collateral damage? Revenge? Strategy?"

I'd call it returning the favour.

They attacked our civilians, we attack theirs.

I approve of returning the favour.

"America indeed thought the punishment was to harsh. But they went along with it anyway, didn't they? They didn't try to stop it either."

America didn't go along with it. They were outvoted.

Unlike you, I can understand the concept of democracy.

And they did try to stop it. First by negotiating with Britain and France, and then by creating the League of Nations to try and continue to counteract the ramifications of the treaty.

"And didn't you say holding back was wrong?"

About that, the leaders of Germany called surrender becasue they knew they were screwed if they continued. Now would have been a good time to show good grace to them and spare the world from another war.

Also, you shouldn't hold back if your enemies are not willing to surrender.

But first of all, the Allies weren't the good guys in WW1 to start out with. Germany was helping Austria, who was attacked by Serbia. And Serbia's allies (The Allies) came in to start a war, while Germany and Austria's allies (The Central Powers) also came in.

In the end, we basically punished the actual good guys and accused them of what we did.

So in that scenario, the Allies not holding back (with the exception of America, who did hold back) against the losers was wrong.

"Not a small feeling of guilt or regret..."

Okay. Maybe I would feel guilty. But I wouldn't regret it.

"Not remembering that thousands died for your own goal that had nothing to do with anyone else?"

I would remember them, actually.

"Many people would consider you the villain in the story."

Yet the majority of those people treat Snape, Batman, and every other superhero who causes callateral damage as heroes. Hypocritical much?

"And an endless war is something you should never hope for, and neither is a cycle for revenge."

I never asked for an endless war.

And about the cycle of revenge... you do know that after one gets revenge, they can go into hiding, right?

Also, I think some are fine with living inside the cycle of revenge. I know I am.

"So if you would kill an innocent person, even though he had nothing to do with it, would you really blame his son, brother or friend to want revenge on you?"

And to answer that, I don't blame them for wanting revenge on me.

"Some people might call the bombing of Japan evil."

Those people are idiots.

The bombing of Japan was righteous.

"I'm sure that Osama Bin Laden thought that punishing non-believers was a righteous goal."

That's where he's wrong. What did they ever do to him?

"Hitler probably had plenty of excuses why the Holocaust was good and would pay of in the end. And he would believe in them. Because he thought he was the good guy."

I thought we already said he was insane.

"No one sees himself as the villain."

Evil wouldn't see themselves as evil because they're effing dumbasses.

And if you're so cynical, why don't you just give in to revenge?

"Y'know? I love the books too, and are better in some ways then the movie. But I don't keep complaining and complaining its better."

I'm not rattling on about how the Books are better.

I'm pointing out how bad of an adaptation the 1st Movie and the TV Show are. And about how they're so overrated.

"I already explained plenty of times why the village avoided Hiccup, why Stoick wasn't as abusive as some may think (he's far from the perfect parent, but he isn't super bad either) and why the Vikings waged war against the dragons. They defended themselves. Look at the earlier comments."

Yeah, you explained why the village avoided Hiccup. But it wasn't right for them to do so. Yet you stupidly continue to defend them.

And Stoick is abusive. Read MY earlier comments.

And the vikings stupidly continued a war even when one of their own found a better way to end it. Stupid idiots.

And regarding Cressida Cowell, I said in my last comment that I respect her because she let her story be changed and toned down for the sake of the general movie audience.

"And doesn't 'if not always' means they're always punished?"

"Not always" means "not always".

So the Twins are not always punished.

Honestly, what kind of logic are you operating on?

"If someone kept making a mess and I had to clean that up and he only got away with a scolding, I'd get pissed as well."

He didn't get away with just a scolding.

He got a public scolding and humiliation. Which is something a parent should never do.

Not to mention being told that he's not as good as us and never will be, in front of his own people.

"I will get in their way because its not justice."

I'll stop you from getting in the way, because revenge is justice to some people - me included.

"But I'm referring to racists who kill innocents simply to kill, with no higher reason."

I thought we were talking about war and terrorists mainly, not racists.

"But take that example of US soldiers who killed out of pure xenophobia and nothing else, basically using them as a way to blow of steam or get revenge, even though it was an entirely different faction (again, Iraq and the terrorists were far from allies)."

You know, if we already agreed on something, why do you feel the need to bring it up.

Actually, while we both think of it as slaughter, I would still let them do it.

I still prefer them over the terrorists, and hey, if the terrorists didn't attack, we wouldn't be provoked into doing that in the first place.

"But the thing is, it WAS revenge kill. Those US soldiers I'm talking about had a very black-and-white way of thinking. Many admitted they considered every Middle-Eastern person to be evil and barbaric, and didn't give a damn who they shot and killed. They 'avenged' innocent people by killing innocent people, simply because they shared their ethnicity."

So?

I'd still prefer to hang out with those US soldiers than with you.

They're the ones who're not sitting on their butts doing nothing about terrorism.

"But you stated earlier you had no problems executing innocents in order to avenge people who weren't killed by them in the first place, just to make yourself feel better without a higher goal."

Let me make myself clear(er).

If the terrorists are hiding in a city, I'm gonna bomb the city. I'll finish off those bastard terrorists once and for all.

"He indeed made Germany wealthy again. But that's the only good thing he ever did."

He also let Germany re-arm itself. That's another good thing.

Oh, and how exactly did he need to kill to get back territory? The history books I have read never said that he did so.

"The more intelligent a creature is, the more developed and complex its emotions are. Compare a corvidae and a pigeon to one another in terms of behavior, and you'll quickly notice the difference. And the dragons in the novels seem to be generally more intelligent then the movie ones, who appear to be more animalistic in nature."

So can I accuse the writers of just spotlighting Toothless, then?

And to those of you who find little to no fault within the movies, why do you complain that the dragons lack personality?

You say that the writing is fine, but you can't stand it that the dragons are acting more animalistic than intelligent.

You can't have it both ways, people.