User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151123153109

Yup. They were. And don't you think they would have wanted revenge for that? I think quite some Germans would have wanted revenge after the Battle of Berlin.

The war with the Dragons had been going on for 300 years. It only makes sense if killing them would become part of their culture, and as a rite of passage. Many real cultures have this as well. Some Native American tribes consider killing a wolf or other animal as a rite of passage, for example. Plus, Nordic cultures are often centered around glory in battle. Heck, they believe you only go to Valhalla if you die in battle or are killed by a weapon. If not, no Heaven for you. The fear of not going to Valhalla was so great, many people comitted suicide or let a family member kill them with a spear at the moment their natural death would come, or if they would get a deadly disease. So while the HTTYD-Vikings don't have that extreme view, it does make sense for them to associate battle with honor and glory, especially if you're defending your people.

Not really. Like I said, Japan was already willing to negotiate their surrender. Sea blockades and the obeliration of their navy and air force made sure of it. It was only a matter of time, and several military officers had been against dropping the bomb because no one knew what it would do. Some even believed it could destroy our very atmosphere, as the nuclear bomb was an unknown weapon at the time. Japan was already of the brink of defeat and was already willing to negotiate their surrender. The US dropped it for various reasons, which are still discussed. The official story is that they wanted the war to end as soon as possible and didn't want to wait for the negotiations. But some politicians and officers came forward with other reasons, such as that they wanted to test the bomb.

That's all they are? Collateral damage? Would you not even try to reach your goal without or limiting killing innoscents along the way? I'd try that and only sacrifice innoscents when there is no other choiche. And I wouldn't be proud of it.

The terrorists deserved it. But like I said, the US-invasion made the terrorists more powerful then ever. The US attacked the Iraqi military who was already busy fighting the terrorists as well. Instead of trying to become allies against their common enemy, the US just attacked everyone without discriminating, causing a three-way war. I'm not just talking about killing innoscents by accident. US and British soldiers literally opened fire in public areas without enemies (such as markets) on random people that happened to be out on the streets. No goal of trying to kill terrorists, no accidental casualties. Just killing random people for the sake of killing. There was even a video of it before it got taken down, showing US soldiers firing at random people in a small village from their chopper. Again, no terrorists. No enemy soldiers. It wasn't even on a battlefield or an important strategic location. They just killed people because they were Middle-Eastern, and no other reason. Some soldiers even admitted they killed civillains without needing to for racist reasons.

Its kind of hard to prevent something that hasn't happened yet. Do you honestly exspect a random Middle-Eastern civillain to know everything that's going on and have the power to stop it? Plenty of people in the Middle-East were also shocked when 9/11 happened. Again, it wasn't an order of the goverment or military. It was a rogue action by a rogue orginisation. They had no ties to any goverment whatsoever. So instead of delcaring war against the group responsible, the US declared war on an entire group of countries who weren't even involved and were already fighting against those terrorists in the first place. The US literally declared war on the wrong people.

That's actually very recent, that they have become extremely open with their crimes. The operation of 9/11 was kept a secret, and the terrorists didn't or rarely used the internet during that time. Everyone who was not a member of the group who comitted the crime couldn't have known what they were planning. And we already have hunted the one's responsible down.

I suspect that if some random guy with a gun storms into your house and starts shooting you and your family purely because you happen to share the ethnicity of the criminal, you would think otherwise. But even then, the US didn't join the Iraqi govement and military, who were already fighting the terrorists. They attacked Iraq as a whole and started a three-way war without even trying to become allies against their mutual enemy. You said you think its common sense to form an alliance against a common enemy, in this case the terrorists...But yet you approve that the US declared war on all of Iraq when said country was already fighting the same enemy, without even trying to work together against the terrorists?

WW2 was just plain unnececcery. Germany was wealthy and there was literally no real, practical reason to go to war, except for revenge, gaining more territory (Even though there was no need of that either.) and propoganda of German superiority. Also keep in mind that many countries Hitler attacked weren't involved in WW1. The Netherlands weren't involved in WW1, yet Germany attacked them as well, for example. Hitler lead his country in a war that didn't need to happen. Revenge isn't a good reason to declare war. Its probably one of the worst reasons, infact.

Not so fun fact: Nearly every war criminal, terrorist, dictator, general and military fanatic describes civillian casualties as 'just collateral damage'. So here ties in the 'Don't become what your hunting' expression again.

The only time Stoick and Hiccup are worried about inter-tribal politics is when that tribe is actually featured, such as the Shivering Shores or Berserkers. So, again, if the tribes aren't really that social, it makes sense they're only worried about politics with tribes they have a relation with.

I don't recall a scene where Hiccup made clear he liked her for something else then her beaty and fighting skills.

She's actually one of the people who doesn't express any anger or resentment towards Hiccup, and she's even been seen feeling a bit sorry for him, though she didn't defend him either. Her reasons for avoiding Hiccup are most likely the same as the rest of the tribe: Hiccup causes trouble where people get hurt

I think an episode centered around Astrid's and Stormlfy's relationship would actually be very interesting. So far, each of the characters has had an episode that explains the bond with their dragon. Hiccup and Toothless, being main characters, have multiple and Fishlegs and Meatlug, for some reason, as well. Yet while Astrid does have an episode centered around her past (Literally ONE episode), Stormfly is just...there.

There actually have been episodes that focused on character development on Hiccup. Though its usually his relationship with another character, such as Toothless, Stoick or Snotlout, rather then himself, that changes.

Season 3 isn't over yet. They could still appear, because it would be weird if they would never appear again. And it did effect more then that. It shows how Hiccup came up with the flight suit and how Stoick got Skullcrusher. And its confirmed episodes that explain how the Dragon Blade was invented and how Gobber got Grump are coming up.

The reason dragons could communicate was obviously because Hiccup can speak Dragonese. He isn't able to do that in the movie!verse, and therefore can't communicate through speech, and the bond he has with Toothless is developed without any verbal contact. Which I personally think makes the bond seem stronger.

But to be fair, there are very few series where we see EVERYTHING that happens in a character's life.

I suppose that is true at least.