User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24865409-20151202013616

"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."

Well, it worked.

There has been no World War 3.

And good of the Allies not to ask for a ridiculous debt the second time around.

"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."

Isn't that just glorifying war, then?

Heck, isn't that just glorifying getting yourself injured?

I'm sorry, but I just think bragging about scars is illogical, impractical and stupid. What's the point?

How about this bit from Stoick?

"If we're not fighting something, we're fighting each other."

Heck, even 2 vikings were brawling (for no good reason) in the background as Stoick said that.

Can vikings do a recreational activity that is not violent, for a change?

"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."

And another stupid thing is that being a proficient fighter gets you the win. No matter how unsporting you are (looking at you, Snotlout).

Even the dragon races are not devoid of unnecessary injury and violence, and heck cheating as well.

Regarding the Japanese surrender, I'm still going to take the words of historians over yours.

"I'd made an alliance with Iraq, instead of declaring war on them."

Whatever floats your boat.

"It doesn't make sense, no matter how you look at it."

Well it made sense to me and a lot of others.

"Or would you declare war on the entire country and start a three-way war?"

Three-way war it is, then.

"Because then you're just killing to kill."

So? I don't view it as that. It's just collateral damage in my book.

"Revenge against one or two people works. An entire country...Yeah, that's problematic."

I'm willing to take up those problems for the sake of revenge.

"And those people want revenge on you then."

Let them come. I still have a lot of fight left.

"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."

That is where you're wrong.

Only the British and the French wanted to exact high debts from Germany.

America was against that, because they knew that that would provoke Germany into starting another war.

And the Americans were right.

"In truth, no one has figured out why Hitler declared war on America. It's a stupid and illogical move, no matter how you look at it."

In my previous comment, I already agreed with you that that was a stupid move by Hitler.

And I also said that it was one of the first signs that he was insane.

"Then don't take revenge on that person. Weight the options: Either you live your entire life with a feeling of wrath. Or thousands of innocent people end up dying because you wanted to settle a score. Will you still feel blissful if thousands of people, including your own, are dead because you had a vendetta against one person?"

I'm sorry, but I pick revenge all the way through.

And I quite like the idea of living a life full of wrath. Sounds fun.

And I'm fine with thousands dying so that I can settle a score. I'd feel 100% blissful.

"And if they smash, conquer and wreck your country instead? Yeah, all that talk about being heroic and fighting for the light doesn't do much good then."

Someone else in the future, near or far, will take up the fight. There always is.

"It has to end sometime."

You know what?

I'm fine with ending war and revenge as long as the majority of both parties agree with it.

If not, then I'm pretty blifful with continuing the cycle of war and revenge.

"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."

That's you then.

But what I see is someone actually being brave, bold and full of justice - as long as they're doing it for the right reasons.

"Again, the 'evil' side think they're the good guys."

Evil is evil. That is final.

"No one, no matter how evil the crimes they commit are, consider himself to be the bad guy."

Really?

I must be the only one with a working conscience, then.

The fear of myself becoming evil always stops me from actually becoming evil.

"You say that the good triumphs, but who is the good?"

The people who are fighting for the right reasons.

I don't give a damn if they corss the line. They are the heroes here.

Hey, you're the one who said to look at the Movies as if they WEREN'T an adaptation of the Books.

By your logic, that means that the movies (which are in your words a separate franchise not meant to be an adaptation at all) copied and pasted a title from a book (which you siad that the movie did not adapt) and took major characters from said book as well (without adapting the book).

That's PLAGARISM.

"The movie is slightly based on the books. But they're not the books."

Why didn't you just say so earlier?

Oh wait, because you wanted to avoid the fact that it's clear that the Books are supremely superior.

"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."

And said adaptations are either excellent or rubbish.

"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."

You mean the reaons why Hiccup was abused. And FYI, the Books made it much more clear why he was abused without trying to defend the wrongdoers.

So I repeat, did the vikings just wanted to kill dragons? Or did they want to end the war? Because Hiccup and his dragon friends found a superior way to end the war.

And regarding Stoick... ABUSIVE.

"Even the directors and Cressida Cowell explained some of the changes that were made."

Yes, changes were made. But some of them were too abrupt and unjustified.

And I respect Cressida Cowell, because she let the movie adaptation butcher her books so that they can be shared with the world. I mean really, I've only seen one other author who doesn't rage when their books are butchered in an adaptation.

"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'."

The Books were better, because they had a better story that didn't have a lot of plotholes like the Movies did.

"Pranksters, yes."

In HTTYD 2, the twins seem to have actually dropped their prankster ways (good on them).

But I want to see development of that in the Show - but there hasn't been any.

"But there's a difference between blowing up a boat and knocking down yaks."

I also thought that the twins blew up a few buildings...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

"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."

Key Words: if not always

The Twins are not always punished for the grief they dish out.

Contrast with Hiccup, who's called out every time a flaw of his pops up.

"But I don't support killing innocents for the sake of 'returning the favor', just to satisfy feelings of vengeance."

I can respect your opinion on that matter.

But I support vengeance all the way.

"Sacrificing innocents for a higher goal or accidentally killing them is very different then just killing them because I blame them for something they didn't do."

I'm completely apathetic to that.

War is war.

"And I'm genuinely curious: why do you consider Hitler to be good until he killed kids, even though the numerous horrible things he did before that?"

Fine, I guess I'll re-evaluate.

Killing children is the final straw.

And yeah, I guess I forgot about his racist ideologies.

But, the first few things he did did help out the people. Bringing them out of poverty, getting back territory, building back the strength of the military - those were all good things.

Now that you've reminded me however, I will condemn Hitler for his racism as well.

But let's not forget what the British did to India, and how black people were treated.

Hitler wasn't the only person who was racist in those times.

"But I don't support simply killing out of revenge, and nothing else."

I respect your opinion. But don't get in the way of those who do want to exact revenge.

"In the Middle-East people were sometimes killed if there was no reason."

That's not a revenge kill. That's slaughter.

That's a point that you and I can agree with.

However let me make this clear:

Revenge, in my book, is getting payback on those who wronged you.

Key Word: those

However, those who get in the way unintentionally are still collateral damage.

"There are rarely good or bad sides. There are just sides."

To you, that is.

"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."

The show is also about their dear friends - who have recevied little to no development.

I'm not asking them to be removed. I'm asking for more screentime from their friends.

My current description of the show is like watching a Batman show where anyone who isn't called Batman is a secondary character.

"But Meatlug and Hookfang also show enough emotion to set them apart from the rest."

Those 2 are still pretty 2D.

Meatlug episodes have a repetitive formula of her trying to prove herself to Fishlegs or get his attention.

Hookfang is just rebellious.

"But I think it also has to do with intelligence. Numerous sources state that Night Furies are the most intelligent of all dragon species. They therefore naturally have more obvious personalities."

Intelligence does not equal personality or emotion.

That thing about "intelligence = personality" seems like a flimsy excuse by the writers to focus more on Toothless.

Intelligence is not a problem in the Books. Not a problem at all.

So far in the Books, I've seen dragons that are cheeky, humble, angry, deceitful, encouraging, desperate, ruthless, loyal, vain and defiant.

Although to HTTYD 2's credit (again), the writers gave Cloudjumper a lot of personality (despite not being a Night Fury), in fact arguably more personality than Toothless.

"For some reason, I don't think seeing Hiccup eating breakfast, Astrid making her braid of Snotlout polishing his axe is that fun to watch."

I've seen shows and movies that makes all those details interesting and integral to the story and characters.

That is what the HTTYD TV Show lacks.