#Dean Deblois

[kingofthewilderwest]

We need to start questioning the conflation of "maturity" with "increased stakes."

It's not to say higher stakes is always a bad choice. The first half of the How to Train Your Dragon book series has an endearingly whimsical, child-like feel. Hiccup's issues in the first half of book one are an obnoxious, cat-sized Toothless pooping in his helmet. The movie adaptation might have made the book and its counterpart distant cousins, but it was a thoughtful move to alter concepts to the appropriately theatrical: books and movies aren't the same medium. Hiccup riding alone on Toothless, exchanging fire blasts with a mountain-sized dragon, and losing his leg came off as well-done storytelling.

Hiccup staring at a prosthetic never happened in the book. He didn't lose his leg in his encounter with the Green Death. It was, as the creative powers behind the movie said, a result of the increased stakes. They didn't do this just to be more dramatic; they did it because it seemed that, based on how their narrative was going, this made sense. And this was a soft, quiet, shocking, breath-taking scene that instilled how good the movie handled its stakes. It gave us a reflective reaction to consequences that audiences might not have expected. This movie understood timing, pauses, quietness, narrative arc, poignance, reflection, emotion, love, and heart.

We know about the conflation of live action as "more mature" than animation. But a medium doesn't change maturity levels. We all know that's bogus, and many analyses have been given on that. Disney live actions add extraneous gunk, down to Gaston having a past relationship with war (so I've heard, from the people who actually watched the movie), and Disney giving us the sad scoop on why Belle's mom isn't around. Furthermore, lots of times, when I see the conversion of animation to live action, I notice creators feel a need to "raise the stakes" -- in line with the erroneous view of "giving maturity."

But "higher stakes" often means inserting action in place of mindful interaction. I feel today's Hollywood movies, in their treatment of "action," don't let movies pause and breathe anymore - ergo, they don't let us think. Isn't it more juvenile to actively avoid thought in favor of "hey look I made the building go boom"? There may be less "stakes" in introspection and mindful dialogue, but that's what gives it its maturity. That's how we went from Iron Man 1, with its grounded treatment of war and abuse, to the mindless high spectacle MCU is today.

Snappy one-liners or moments that clap at contemporary issues don't substitute for maturity. What can make a story mature is characters grappling with issues in a natural narrative through-line. A snappy one-liner is its own form of speedy spectacle.

We know about the conflation of "gore and sex" with "mature audiences." I believe they're right that graphic sex and gore is designed for adults. But that doesn't make it mature, and that doesn't make it the only way to target a medium for adults.

"Realisticness" isn't maturity. Per above regarding animation: realistic visuals are nothing. And if you think that putting more Debbie Downer material into your adaptation makes it more adult, you have to ask yourself why the themes that spoke to people's souls got muddled in its midst. We weren't mature enough to interact with the most subtle, nuanced, and impacting voice of the story. But hey! Look! There's more corpses, I guess!

It's not the visuals, it's not the events. It's not the "things." It's not the basic insertion of the external. Get past the superficial, get past the top layer of presentation. It's the mind. It's the ability to think. It's the ability to be still. It's the ability to be interested and attentive when something is slow or quotidian, because we can understand why that is important for narrative growth or arcs or themes or commentary on the human condition. It's the ability to know when and when not to include something. It's the ability to make resonant impact. It's the ability to be deep with your emotions or your themes. It's the ability to take what you have and grow it in a way by which we can derive something deeper.

Maturity is critical thought and well-conducted, appropriate responses to content of any kind.

As DeBlois tells Empire, the move to live-action brings a different emphasis to How To Train Your Dragon; a new heft, both physically and emotionally. “It’s so dialed-up in terms of stakes — having a fully credible, photo-real dragon stomping around trying to kill him,” the director says.

And maybe that DeBlois quote is taken out of context. Maybe there's more going on than that one sentence conveys. Maybe Empire is making their own erroneous assumptions. But "so dialed-up in terms of stakes," isn't, on its own, a good appeal. The animated movie already dialed things up - and knew when to include or not include something. A live-action that imitates the visuals of the animated movie exactly, as if no independent thought has been done to its unique adaptation, to the pros and cons of the medium, to what a independently-presented story needs and doesn't need... It has to make you wonder: how many conflations of "maturity" are going on?

How long are we going to keep making our own conflations?

[haveyouseenthismovie-poll]

[hydravns]

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (2010) Dir. Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois

[persimnon]

Amidst the (racism-unrelated) criticism of the film, I do feel for Dean. Reading between the lines here, I think this is the most direct way he can say “yes it’s unnecessary, but I don’t want to let anyone else ruin HTTYD more than a live action remake already inherently does.”

[leabethchase]

Dean Deblois (director and creator of How To Train Your Dragon animationand live action) responds to comments about Astrid's casting and the movie overall:

[tragisbawls]

Gabriel Howell's Snotlout! The movie and especially the cast have been getting way too much hate for a movie that hasn't even came out yet. I will probably be drawing the others as well, because they deserve a chance.

I'm not mad about Snotlout's casting nor his outfit, he reminds me more of the book version of Snotlout and since the live action isn't going to be exactly the same as the animated movie, I'm willing it give all these changes a chance.

[thecosmicmap]

Strap in folks this is gonna be a long one.

So as we know Dean Deblois is the writer of HTTYD2 and 3. As a writer you have a list of rules you should follow. One such rule is “show don’t tell.”

Dean disregarded this rule and we mainly see it with Grimmel and the Night Fury genocide. In the movie he tells us “I hunted every last night fury except yours” yet Grimmel has nothing to show for it. No trophies, no night fury hide cloak, not even a claw. The most we get is a few “facts” about Night Furies that aren’t even true, or can’t be proven to be true because we’ve only ever seen one Night Fury.

“Night Furies can’t survive the cold.” Yet Hiccup tells us (in GOTNF which is canon) that winter in Berk lasts for most of the year.

“Night Furies can’t fly long distances” Yet Toothless’ wings are large and wide, which allows him to glide for long periods of time.

“Furies mate for life.” We would never know because we only see one Night Fury in the entire franchise. And if we take a look at other dragons, it seems they only see their mate during mating season.

And why would Grimmel know that if he’s trying to kill off the Night Furies forever? What’s the point in knowing their mating habits if there’s never going to be any Night Furies again? Did he just look at a Fury pair and go “yeup. They mate for life.”

Now another thing about Grimmel is that his hunting method is unreliable. One, he left his bait without any restraints. Imagine if the Light Fury woke up minutes before and just left? Boom! No more bait. What if Toothless wasn’t horny and was mad at the Light Fury for trying to kill Hiccup multiple times? Boom. He wouldn’t be trying to deal with her and the plan is ruined because the bait isn’t appealing to the target. What if Toothless didn’t smell her and never showed up?

Lots of plot conveniences. It happens in the entire movie. Dean also had to confirm that yes, Grimmel did kill all the Night Furies in an INTERVIEW because people didn’t believe that Grimmel genocide the Night Furies. And Dean only did this because he thinks Toothless is special because he’s the last Night Fury.

Now we could be here forever talking about how stupid grimmel is as a villain and how stupid it is to even entertain the thought that ONE man and his six, drugged dragons were able to commit genocide to a species of intelligent, elusive and fast dragons, but let’s just continue.

Another rule Dean disregarded is having good characterization. Or ANY characterization!

The Light Fury immediately comes to mind. Name one personality trait she has that we actually see in the movie. You can’t, can you? Because Dean actively wrote that out. There was a deleted scene of Light Fury and Toothless’ romantic flight which gave her much more personality, yet Dean wrote it out and gave us the boring one we have now.

Also, can we just talk about how she doesn’t have a name? Her name is literally “The Light Fury.” Which is the same as naming a Golden Retriever Golden Retriever.

I know Hiccup would’ve named her. Hell, anybody would’ve named her! But no, Dean decided that she didn’t need one because “how else would she be wild”?

Dean says this in an interview, “We intentionally try to keep her [The Light Fury] wild and elusive, to kind of represent something that is pure dragon, that hasn't been tainted by human beings by domestication.” Which just goes to show that Dean doesn’t know what domestication is.

(Dean also doesn’t know what a subspecies is because if he did, then he would know a Light Fury can’t possibly be a Night Fury subspecies because they have too many differences).

1. this means that Dean thinks all of the dragons that have benefited from human companionship (Toothless, Cloudjumper, Meatlug, Stormfly, etc) are tainted.

And 2, there is nothing “dragon” about the Light Fury. She has small feet (Hiccup’s head is literally bigger than her feet), small claws, a small mouth, her wings are weirdly shaped, she’s curved, she has no protective scales and her tailfin is in the shape of a heart, which would actually mess up her flight.

Many people have said this is because she’s semi-aquatic. But this is disproven by the fact that we’ve never seen her in the water and the art book.

Here’s two direct quotes: “We had to explore how the Light Fury would walk and make her feel like a female.” “We had to control all the shapes while keeping her both powerful and graceful so she didn’t fall too much into the reptilian category.”

The Light Fury is a plot device, a “agent of change” in Dean’s words.

Now while we’re on the topic of characterization, let’s talk about our main cast. We’ll start with Toothless.

Toothless is Hiccup’s best friend, who will do anything to protect him no matter the costs. He’s sassy, intelligent, curious, loyal, protective and playful.

Now take all of this, and throw it in the trash because this isn’t the toothless you’re going to see in THW. In THW Toothless’ playfulness is shot to the max, making him more like a slobbery puppy than the lethal panther he was in HTTYD1.

Toothless isn’t protective of Hiccup at all, his intelligence is below hell itself and we don’t see a lick of sass. Httyd3 Toothless is physically incapable of looking scary because his face has been deformed to to look blocky and smushed together. He lacks any aerodynamics and we can even see it in his flying. He looks like he’s struggling.

Toothless and Hiccup’s friendship is so watered down in this movie, just for the sake of romance. That’s not how it should be. Romance and friendship go hand in hand, one is not more valuable than the other.

Astrid is nothing but Hiccup’s emotional support, yet she also puts him down. “you gave him [Toothless] his freedom, what were you expecting?” This implies that the dragons are being held captive and Toothless doesn’t want to be with Hiccup.

Which he does, as we see in GOTNF. Toothless only left to get Hiccup’s helmet, then he broke the auto-tail. But why would Astrid even say that? Thats so insensitive 😭.

The twins are dumbed down (despite proving to actually being intelligent), Snotlout is flirting with a woman who’s 20 years older than him (and might be his aunt, depending if you see Hiccup and Snotlout as cousins) and Valka outright tells Hiccup that they can’t hide away from the world.

Which is true, they can’t. Because eventually they will be found. Now remember this, it’ll come back later.

Now, when writing a story it’s important to move the plot along in a way that doesn’t seemed forced. When I think of this, I think of Trollhunters: tales of Arcadia.

The protagonist (Jim) goes into the villain’s home in order to rescue his friend’s baby brother, yet he gets trapped there. His friends have to get him out of there, which allows the villain to be freed from the Darklands. This happening allows the story to move forward in a way that makes sense and isn’t forced.

Now back to HTTYD3. Let’s look at the scene where Toothless and the LF get captured. The Light Fury smells grimmel, she calls to toothless, runs towards Grimmel and gets shot.

Toothless runs over (ignoring Hiccup’s warnings) approaches Grimmel, takes forever loading a plasma blast while sloooowly walking towards Grimmel, allowing the man to shoot him and make him go night-night.

Hiccup runs over, also taking forever. And the next time we see grimmel he’s already tied up two dragons (BY HIMSELF) in these complicated straight jackets. The other dragons come around (finally) ready to attack, yet Grimmel threatens the light fury and tells Toothless to call of the dragons.

“But isn’t Toothless asleep?” I hear you ask, and to that I respond with “no, he’s not. He miraculously woke up in time to call the dragons off, despite the light fury still being knocked out cold.”

The dragons are called off and grimmel leaves on his quad-copter. The dragons follow them, even though Grimmel didn’t tell toothless to make them follow.

Do you see how forced this is? There’s many more forced plot points, but we’ll be here forever talking about it and this post is long enough already.

Next up on the broken rule list, Dean let the antagonist win. Now it’s okay for an antagonist to win, but never in the third act.

Grimmel’s ultimate goal was for dragons to disappear. Dean himself says “he does not want a world in which dragons roam free.” And what do we see at the end of HTTYD3?

The dragons disappearing into the Hidden World forever. Exactly what Grimmel wanted.

Finally, the last rule Dean broke is having a consistent plot. Now the plot of each movie is a bit different. Httyd1: Hiccup shows Vikings that while dangerous, dragons aren’t monsters. And it’s better to work together than working apart.

Httyd2: Dragons are being captured and enslaved, we need to save them and fight for our friends.

Httyd3: toothless needs to get a girlfriend. He HAS to, despite not ever showing to want one, but he’s horny right now so YES, he HAS to.

But the franchise has an overarching narrative about humans and dragons coming together. That no matter what, they will prevail because they’re working together.

Well in HTTYD3 yes, they prevail. But the dragons leave. Why, you may ask? Because no matter what they’ll always be bad humans so there’s no point fighting.

Hiccup sends the dragons to an underground glittery cave that doubles as a prison, and six years of friendship is thrown down the drain for a female Toothless met three days prior. Hiccup tells the audience that dragons will hide until humans learn how to get along (despite the many humans that already get along with them).

And that’s it. The end. No more.

“But wait!” I hear you ask, “Won’t the dragons eventually be found again?” And to that I say, “Oh, you remember!”

Because yes, the dragons will eventually be found out again. And because Hiccup gave up on fighting for change, these humans think dragons are dangerous monsters and will undoubtedly enslave/kill them.

We even see this with his own kids! Zephyr thought dragons were monsters and was ready to hurt them in order to “protect her family”. Humans of the future will no doubt act like this as well.

Humans and dragons will never learn to get along if they are never around each other. Change won’t just happen, you have to fight for it. Like the end of slavery, or the Women’s Rights Movement. Those things didn’t just happen, people had to fight for change and they had to keep fighting because if they gave up then nothing would change.

And when the dragons are inevitably found once again, it will be Hiccup’s fault when they’re either killed or enslaved.

[astridhoff03]

I finally watched the wild robot and it was beautiful just like the httyd trilogy

This is definitely my favorite movie of the year. There is so much in it that reminds of the httyd trilogy and everything why I love it so much. Roz, Brightbill and Fink are an extraordinary family but they love each other so much it’s heartwarming. But if I am honest Fink is the best fox character we ever got, he’s fun, shows emotions and has his own character development and personality. He’s the best character in the entire movie. But I can’t forget about Brightbill and Rozs Mother-Son Releationship, which was really beautiful and meaningful just like Hiccup and Toothless‘ Friendship, but it is still something different because Roz and Brightbill are mother and child to each other. Also Brightbill was as duckling just adorable. All the wild animals were also really entertaining but I think my favorite of them was Pinktail with her babys, which’s jokes were the funniest. Especially when one of them was predicted death. Also I really loved the art style, it’s like Puss in Boots2 but expanded. In my opinion the wild robot, the httyd-trilogy and Puss in Boots the last wish are DreamWorks greatest movies. Seeing Toothless, Alex, Marty, Puss in Boots, Shrek, Donkey and Fiona again in the Intro was like meeting old friends.

Little spoiler: In the end it reminds me a bit of the httyd3 ending but it the end comes a bit random. Still good but not better than the ending to dreamworks greatest trilogy, which was made by the same guys.

[fictionalnormalcy]

See if there's one thing to take of note, the live-action How to Train Your Dragon is going to be DreamWork's first.

They're taking the same path as Disney (ngl no matter how you try to frame it- feels like a money grab) where their movies are being turned into a live-action. And they picked HTTYD to be the one submitted to that fate.

But at least they're making some good efforts, there are highlights. I'm still scared as to what the end product will be, but-

Dean Deblois is still directing. John Powell returns as the soundtrack composer. Gerard Butler is reprising his role as Stoick in live-action format.

I even saw on Instagram that Cressida Cowell, author of the HTTYD books, even visited the movie set.

One of DreamWorks' most popular movies was picked to become a live-action. One that was already so well praised for its revolutionary animation. I want to say it's DreamWorks legacy, but that's always a matter of opinion. The Kung Fu Panda trilogy is also brilliant. Well I guess no longer a trilogy.

Anyway, I am both excited and terrified for what the live-action could come to be. A friend of mine weighed the option that maybe they're taking this opportunity to have it be more book proportionate, that I'm more doubtful of.

And then, what if the movie comes to be a success, that's what I get on about. Like, enough to make sure the 3 movies are made live-action too?? Why I dwell on it, is because of the brilliance of the shows. If the live-action does actually garner some good attention, is there going to be a possibility of the shows being made live-action too.

[misterrttegrimborn]

[randomfandomblabdom]

I think part of what's making the conversations around the casting choices in the live action HTTYD so annoying to me is that for me, it has nothing to do with any of the supposedly controversial casting and more to do with the fact the movie seems to be cherry-picking what it wants to carry directly from animation to live action.

We have to wait to see more but as of right now, it looks like a near shot-for-shot remake. I know the director, Dean Deblois, said it wouldn't be but he was also on record of saying he would never make a live action remake and called them lazy several years ago but here we are so forgive me if I don't completely take his word on that. They did their damnedest to make poor Gerard Butler look as much like animated Stoick as humanly possible even if it means it looks like he just walked out of a Spirit Halloween store. Hiccup looks pretty much identical to his animated counterpart including that late 2000s haircut. It appears that they tried their best to replicate set pieces and props from the animated film. They obviously didn't mess with Toothless's design in very obvious ways because he's so iconic that god knows that would've caused absolute chaos...etc.

But then you have characters who don't look a thing like their animated counterparts - not just regarding race but smaller details like hair color or their costumes - in a movie that already looks to be a direct remake of the animated film where other aspects of said animated film are being perfectly replicated (or at least they tried very hard to replicate them).

If they had decided to do something completely different with this live action adaptation and change up every character in some way, this would be a completely different conversation and frankly, none of it would matter but because they seem to be cherry-picking what is and is not a direct remake/replication from the animated film, suddenly the conversation needs to exist because if they're being so particular about Stoick and Hiccup and hell, even Tuffnut looks like a pretty accurate replication then you can't help but ask... well, then why isn't Fishlegs blonde? Why isn't Astrid blonde? Why is Snotlout dressed in bright fucking orange? Why didn't they cast actual identical twins?

They're picking and choosing and it's adding fuel to a fire that was completely avoidable if they'd just picked one side or the other. They could've gone the historical route, they could've said to hell with it and made it all completely different, or they could've made it exactly the same... instead, they've created this confusing mosh pit that frankly shouldn't even exist that is unfortunately going to spark this so-called nitpicking whether people like it or not because you cannot argue that hair color or costumes don't matter when so much of the rest of the film already looks identical to the animation.

[thereweredragonsss]

How To Train Your Dragon Live-Action Set Photos

[hydravns]

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (2010) Dir. Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois

[i-am-trans-gwender]

I feel really bad for Chris Sanders and Dean Deblois. Together they wrote and directed both Lilo and Stitch as well as How to Train Your Dragon. Now both films are getting live action remakes despite not being that old.

[bs-fangirl]

This first look video of the How To Train Your Dragon film really feels like a plea to fans. Dean DeBlois, director of all three animated films and this live action adaptation, saying that he wanted to return, he saw it as a great opportunity. He specifically says that he hopes fans of the animated films will understand that it “comes from a place of love and it comes from a place of respect”.

I’ll admit, I forgot that the original director (except for Chris Sanders) was directing this film. I’m still really iffy about this but that gives me a little hope, even if the teaser didn’t sell me on it.

[trainerofdragons]

Screaming, crying, throwing up.