User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151219175454

Agreed. But the Berkians aren't actual Vikings. HTTYD-Vikings have traits from real Vikings but in the end, they aren't the same Vikings as the one's in our worlds. That goes for both the novels and movies. They wear horned helmets, both are to advanced compared to real Vikings, both live together with Dragons (That one's really obvious) and the book Vikings lived in the same era as Romans. So yeah, the HTTYD-Vikings may have some traits but they're not actual Vikings.

Actually, there are. Cheating is in those cultures just seen as simply wanting to win, no matter what you have to do. Gloating isn't forbidden either and is sometimes even encouraged by some cultures. Vikings, Knights and plenty of other people who claimed to be honoreble were also huge show-offs. The reason for that was because combat and psychial strenght was very important in their honor codes.

Like I said, that's the common story. History books usually show what happens from the victor's point of view.

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

Why would they? Iraq was in a very choatic state. The peace was destroyed, and order and stability were threatened. Saddam wasn't dumb. If the US had offered help defeating the terrorists in Iraq and bring peace and order in the country again, he would have accepted. He had no reason to betray them or refuse their help. If he did, he would have been extremely stupid. Saddam wasn't a good or fair ruler. Far from it. But he also wasn't an idiot. He had worked together before with indivuels and groups that can be considered uneasy alliances at best, but didn't end up betraying them.

Now they're on the run. But I'm refering to the war in the Middle-East right after 9/11.

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

War is never glorious. Most soldiers who actually fought in battle will say it was terrible, and that it wasn't glorious. People at the start of World War 1 were quite trigger-happy, believing war to be glorious and great. The reality was differant. A man that I know fought in Vietnam for the US, but he hated every second of being there. He didn't see himself as a hero on a glorious adventure. He saw war exactly as it is: A terrible thing that should be avoided.

Don't really have that much of an opinion on Batman and Snape, to be honest. I know the basics, and that's it. Wasn't aware of the reason Snape changed sides...That's indeed shallow.

Good guys have also been evil and cruel at times. Yet people thought their goal justified it. Same for the bad guys. They do evil and cruel things because they believe the end result is justified. Evil and good are in the eye of the beholder. 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? Quite a lot.

I didn't mean he would be pissed about the event itself, though I imagine plenty of people in Iraq were shocked as well. He would be pissed that he and his loved one's are blamed for it.

I don't think the movies paint them as that either. You can understand their motives at most, but I wouldn't call them sympathic or innoscent. Like I said, the problem with Hiccup came from both ways. Both are partly responsible and neither are totally innoscent either. And I never met someone who rooted for the Berkians. I've met people who understood why they did certain things and sympathize with their situation. But never rooted. As for turning over a new leaf, Hiccup finally got through to them. It took him a couple of years, but he did.

Alvin's mother, Excellenior (I really hope that's how you spell it...) said that Hiccup is a name for runts in the Hooligan Tribe. Fishlegs never came from Berk in the 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 like Book!Fishlegs better as well. And I like Astrid and Camicazi equelly.

The Vikings attitude wasn't 'I don't understand it and therefore its bad' when it came to dragons. Rather it was 'that gigantic reptile just set my house on fire, stole my livestock and killed my friends and family. Let's fight back!'. Let's face it, most people would react that way.

Stoick said it right at the beginning. Its almost winter and he has to feed an entire village. Winter was a very big deal back then, and it was the biggest cause of death in many places. And considering Berk lies in the north, they wouldn't be excluded. Food is scarce during the winter. The fact that dragons keep raiding them doesn't help. The fact Hiccup accidently released the creatures who stole food didn't help either.

Not abusive. He's just telling the truth. Hiccup can't kill dragons. Why lie and say he can? And he only talked about killing dragons. He didn't say Hiccup is useless at everything, just dragon killing.

Then sort it out with the people who are guilty and leave out the innoscents. If you want those terrorists so badly, send that helicopter I was talking about to their HQ instead of a random market or farm in the middle of nowhere whee you know they aren't.

"Actually, while we both think of it as slaughter, I would still let them do it." You said it right there. You said you would love to hang out with soldiers who admit they killed innoscents out of pleasure or for racist reasons.

And lets not forget that those brave and heroic people also did stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings and this http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2zd0ou These people are true heroes. Sure, they gangraped a 14-yr old girl and murdered her family afterwards, but who cares about that? They were pushed at their limit afterall.

Then you either misunderstand me or did't read everything I said. I said I don't condone the killing of innoscent people when it isn't neccery 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. Loss of life shouldn't be taken lightly or shrugged of like its nothing.

Its kind of Obvious, isn't it? Hitler sends armies out to piece of land, and people already live there. Do you honestly think the Germans took it back peacefully? Polen, for example had received some of Germany's former territory, and Hitler used force to get it back, and cruelty to keep it, just like every other country he attacked. Heck, many people conside Hitler's invasion of Polen to be the start of WW2.

And according to you, the second film was an improvement to the first. I never said it wasn't, did I now? I never said 'HTTYD1 is better then the book or the sequel'. I just explained its flaws. When did I say it was already perfect?