It seems like your opinion of this has worsened over time. Yeah, it feels like the film was trying too hard to be "great" and yet "fun", and falters badly with the first aspect with Hiccup's moralizing.
The subplot of Valka and the sanctuary versus the dragon trappers probably could have been a better film.
While I can agree this film doesn't quite live up to its predecessor, I would certainly disagree with the notion that it was a "chore to watch", or anything remotely in the realm of "incompetent". Those are strong words, and ones that I don't think are warranted by the film's flaws.
First, let's start with our villain, Drago. Now, I'll certainly grant that there's nothing particularly inventive about his character. However, "half-baked" to me suggests that he doesn't fulfill his role in the film, which I don't think is at all true. Like many villains, Drago is the antithesis of our heroes. Where they have earned the loyalty of their dragon companions through mutual trust and respect, Drago has demanded the loyalty of his dragons through intimidation and a hefty dose of mind control. In the end, the film posits that loyalty earned is more powerful than loyalty forced, and it does this through Drago's defeat at the... mouth I suppose of Toothless, who shakes off the mind control and refuses to be intimidated in order to save those that he actually cares about.
As for Hiccup, I think its important to remember that last time his father told him a harrowing story of vile villains who couldn't be reasoned with and needed to simply be put down, he was talking about the dragons, and Hiccup knows quite well that they turned out to be pretty alright once you got to know them. As such, I can understand his initial refusal to believe his father and his desire to want to go find out for himself what this Drago guy is all about and if he's really so bad. I could even understand a bit of him being stubborn and refusing to admit for awhile that he was wrong. It's why I'd say that, yes, it takes too long for him to figure out that his way isn't working and that Drago really is exactly as awful as his father said he was, but I can understand his perspective enough for it to not completely lose me.
That's also why I'd say that the movie isn't so much a "pro-peace" film (Do you mean pacifist? Because that it certainly is not) so much as a "pro-not-going-in-all-guns-blazing-before-you-know-what's-actually-going-on" film. Again, it definitely takes Hiccup too long to figure out what's going on, but not to the point of complete failure that you make it out to be.
The dramatic potential that Valka as a character presents is certainly not fully realized, but again, saying that she "just exists" doesn't do the film justice. As much as the moral issues she presents get dropped far too easily, she serves the important purpose of giving Hiccup the kind of kindred spirit that he still can't entirely find in his father, as much as Stoic has changed over the years. Unfortunately, this plot probably would have been much more powerful in the first film rather than here, because by this point everyone is by and large on Hiccup's side anyways. I do hope that they explore the moral difficulties of her actions a bit more in the third film.
Do not agree; the film is not incompetent or wasted (the latter to the point where it's a 'chore'; please)
Besides, Hiccup's determination to handle things by reason was shown before in Dragons: Riders of Berk, where he brought a long-time rivalry to a peaceful conclusion. It was practically foreshadowing, only compounded by five years of peace and everything going right (which does tint your vision a little)... so it needed to be knocked down (which it was), for which a completely-evil villain fits. (Plus Drago being completely evil is not a point deducted by itself.) Ultimately, yes, he's still in the same mindset afterward because that's who he is, but he's not gonna be blind about it anymore.
And Valka? Most nuanced character in the film, not fully utilized yes, but not a waste of screentime just because tackling the issue was ignored due to pressing events.
A bit harsh maybe?
Drago is not a great villain, but I think the basics for the (aceptable) idea of hm being an anti-hiccup are there. I saw this and thought about people in viking times taming wolves for real and wether they did it by having a symbiotic relationship with them (wolves were scavenging food from around human camps before they were domesticated) or by dominating them and breeding them down (perhapst more likely) So while I agree that hes shit, theres not NOTHING there.
I totally agree on Valka though. I could have forgiven her and hiccup having no conflict since they are actually dragon and dragons are nice and forgive, even stoic being more interested in getting her back than getting back at her, but the fact that she herself shows not enough remorse to even be believable and then gets a clean out by completely replacing stoic with inaction is weak.
Still this is a sequel and what I wanted from this was fanservice. i feel it delivered that acceptably. Lots more toothless cathcing hiccup, helping him up, beeing powerful.
They simply lost the lionking dude and the advisors. Couldnt have been as good.
I'm not sure the film does paint Hiccup as being in the right with his insistence on solving all problems with peaceful diplomacy, actually. His attempt to reason with Drago leads directly to Stoick getting killed, which is followed with Hiccup saying he's not the peacebringer he thought he was. I think the point was that Hiccup, unsure of what kind of person he wants to be, was trying to assert his identity as a great peacekeeping diplomat at the cost of common sense. Once his father is killed because of his naiveté, it leads him to realize that he shouldn't be basing his actions just on the image he wants to project, but on the needs of his people.
While this review is pretty well written and with many valid points and criticisms, you werent expecting just a "Good Movie" That's a huge lie. You were so overhyped and confident of this movies "SURE TO BE EPIC" greatness that it couldnt have possibly ever live up to your standards. I even warned you "For all we know it could be the next Brave" and then you get all hurt and surprised when it turned out that was true after all. You act all hurt and surprised when it didnt cure cancer, AIDS and didnt stop the heat death of the universe while it was at it.
Seriously, I thought better of you than to be so fucking childish. Guess I got too overhyped about you. My bad.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Disagree. HTTYD 2 did everything better than the first.
@ Mort 08
And to elaborate why I disagree, here we go.
Hiccup thinks Drago's problem is a hatred of dragons because his (Hiccup's) tribe was no different in the original movie. In other words, Hiccup is thinking Stoick is being hypocritical (which he is at times).
This film was not pro-peace. It was "stand for what's right" - with the "stand" part that Hiccup needs to learn about.
And you weren't listening to Hiccup's speech at the end. "We are the Voice of Peace. And bit by bit, we will change this world." Hiccup never said that his tribe will just lie down to try to pacify enemies. They are going to take action to bring peace.
Drago may or may not be half-baked, but he's a far better villain than the Red Death from the original movie.
You say that the filmmakers seem almost afraid to have anyone question Valka's morally ambiguous actions about abandoning her family.
Well I must point out that Stoick was never given proper retribution for his abuse of Hiccup in HTTYD 1. In fact, none of those who abused Hiccup in HTTYD 1 were given proper retribution.
You say that the filmmakers lost their previous confidence to handle difficult subjects, and the film really suffers for it.
The filmmakers never had any confidence to deal with difficult subjects in HTTYD 1 either. Hiccup just forgives everyone at the end like it's no big deal. Huh, like that's realistic. The Red Death is treated like a morally-black villain. Oh yeah that's a real mature story-telling move.
At least HTTYD 2 actually tries (and in some cases, succeeds) to bring about heavy consequences for the characters. Hiccup forgives Valka, because he's that kind of person and Stoick does too, because he's learned from Hiccup. But Valka takes the longest time in forgiving herself. Not to mention that because of her decisions, she only has little time to spend with her husband before he's killed.
The above list of Valka's consequences in HTTYD 2 is more heavier than any consequence in HTTYD 1.
So I disagree with you. HTTYD 2 is the superior movie with better-written characters, a better-written story, more mature concepts and heavier and realistic results for everyone.
Leave a Comment:
How To Mess Up A Sequel
There are two kinds of movies I can't stand: the kind which thinks it's smarter than it really is, and the kind that wastes its potential. How to Train Your Dragon 2 hits both of those buttons. Incompetent and pretentious in equal measure, it becomes a chore to watch in comparison to its predecessor.
My opinion on the plot and characters can be summed up thusly: "Did you all take stupid pills this morning?" This movie would be ten minutes long if the characters weren't too idiotic or stubborn to acknowledge what needs to be done. Hiccup in particular now has rose-tinted glasses fused to his eyeballs, and he's a much less tolerable character for it. After he hears his father's story, knows that Drago is weaponizing dragons and still thinks the problem is a hatred of dragons that can be solved with a simple talk, I quickly lost all sympathy for him. This is a pro-peace film where violence is the best answer. What's more, the film seems to paint Hiccup as being ultimately right: his final speech is pretty much what he's been saying throughout the film with triumphant music blaring behind it. He hasn't really changed, and if the third film wants to be realistic, it'll start with him having run Berk into the ground because he has no idea what he's doing.
Now let's talk about Drago and Valka. Or not, because the film doesn't bother. There's nothing to say about Drago, who is nothing more than your half-baked generic villain. But the way Valka gets ignored is even more infuriating. The filmmakers seem almost afraid to have anyone question her morally ambiguous actions, especially where her family is concerned. So she just exists, not really doing anything that another character couldn't have done, and her arrival causes the film to grind to a halt. With the exception of two scenes, her connection to Hiccup and Stoick could be cut and nothing of value would be lost. I read that she was originally supposed to be the main antagonist, but the filmmakers scrapped it because they didn't want the kids asking questions about the inherent moral conflict there. They lost their previous confidence to handle difficult subjects, and the film really suffers for it.
I remember when Dreamworks was building this up as a major, epic film. I wasn't expecting it to be great, but I was expecting much better than this.