How to Train Your Dragon movie trilogy

How to Train Your Dragon 1 is a wonder.

Hiccup as an outsider, an inventor, compassionate.

Astrid as a strong independent woman.

Toothless as a sort-of cat with a lot of personality.

It has lots of humour and loads of heart.  Even the music is great.

(It’s particularly a wonder if you consider the source material; the movie takes some concepts from the book but basically is completely different in almost every way.  I found the book pretty much unreadable.  Definitely a case of Movie Better Than Book.)

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is good.

It still has most of the elements that make the first movie work.  Sequels are always hard.  I do think Stoic’s end should have been more heroic, but that’s really my only complaint.

Challenging Hiccup’s optimism and pacifism makes for an interesting change from the first movie.

How to Train Your Dragon 3 is… not good.  The 91% on RT gave me a lot of optimism, but I definitely wouldn’t rate it anywhere near that.  50% maybe.  The humour is off and the story is just another dragon-hating-enemy variant.  Gobber is underused, the secondary dragonrider characters are way overused.  The only good part is the ending.

Plus which, I have to say, the new star character, the Lightfury, is just… not good.  It doesn’t even look good.  The entire movie is full of beautifully rendered details down to glints off of dragonscale armour, but the Lightfury looks like it is made out of styrofoam.  Sparkly styrofoam.  And has the personality to match.  They should call her Blankness.  Instead of a strong female character the Lightfury is basically all damsel in distress.  It kind of coos incomprehensibly and has to be rescued from danger.

Every time I looked at it I was pulled out of the movie, into wondering why with all that computing power and animation expertise they made a partner for Toothless that has no detail or personality.  Just a sparkly white blue-eyed blandness.

I will watch the first movie many times, the second occasionally, but for the third I will skip the entire movie except the ending.

Pleasantville and Ready Player One

The 1998 Pleasantville movie is basically the antithesis of Ready Player One, the 2011 book.  (For various reasons, the Ready Player One 2018 movie is not as direct a comparison.)

Pleasantville is about smashing nostalgia, while Ready Player One is about celebrating it.

If Wade Watts had been transported to Pleasantville, it seems fairly likely that he would have quite happily stayed in black and white, reciting memorized lines episode by episode until he reached the end of a rerun cycle and looped back to the beginning again, looping endlessly without change, much like Pleasantville’s Main Street goes nowhere, its end just taking you back to its beginning.

One has to wonder whether he would have lived out this existence happily, a kind of static safe immortality in an unchanging world, or if at some point he would have wanted to break out.  Would pleasant safety have outweighed all other considerations?

It may be hard to imagine that someone could crave that endless sameness, but to some extent it depends on your learned experiences and mental processing about uncertainty.  The past stays in place, it stays at a safe distance.  The present can be overwhelming.  Pleasantville celebrates the reality of our colourful, noisy, chaotic, uncertain world, but not all of us are equipped by nature or nurture to embrace that experience.

Margaret Henderson: “What’s outside of Pleasantville?”
[long pause]
David / Bud: “There are some places that the road doesn’t go in a circle. There are some places where the road keeps going.”

Margaret: “So what’s it like?”
David: “What?”
Margaret: “Out there.”
David: “Well, it’s a … it’s louder, and… scarier, I guess, and it’s a… lot more dangerous.”
Margaret: “Sounds fantastic.”

And it is fantastic but also, it can be overwhelming, and painful.  Beautiful

David and Margaret in Pleasantville.

David and Margaret in Pleasantville.

but also painful.

David’s Mom: “I’m 40 years old, I mean it’s not supposed to be like this.”
David: “It’s not supposed to be anything.”

The past is predictable.  The Romans will always invade Britain in 43 AD, Harry Potter will always be sorted into Gryffindor, Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy will always save the world from nuclear war.  Wade Watts will watch Family Ties over and over again and Michael J. Fox will always be Alex P. Keaton, no more and no less.  You can loop around and around in reruns or rewatching or rereading and the characters never get to rebel, the events never change.

I’ve written about this kind of toxic nostalgia in the context of Ready Player One, but I didn’t talk a lot about why.  James Halliday has toxic nostalgia because he’s damaged.  He can have everything that money can buy, but he can’t have a different past, all his coding and control can’t change the fact that Kira Underwood married Og, not him.

There are only two ways through that.

Eternal Safety

In My-So Called Life, Brian will never ask out Angela, he will always be standing in episode 19, the last episode, watching her drive away with Jordan.  Because it’s the safe choice, the controlled choice.  In Star Trek: Generations, Tolian Soran will destroy an entire world just to escape back to the safe and controlled immortality of The Nexus.  Both destroying the future to stay safe alone.

In BBC Radio 4 – Archive on 4 – Commuterville, Matthew Sweet reaches his conclusion about the endlessly repeated routine of our lives in very English school essay fashion, calling on Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence.  There is a definite comfort in routine, but also a kind of madness.

Endless Change

George Parker: “So what’s going to. happen now?”
Betty Parker: “I don’t know.  Do you know what’s going to happen now?
George Parker: “No, I don’t.”

It’s easy to say we should embrace this uncertainty, that we should learn the lesson of 1993’s Groundhog Day and work on making ourselves better as we go through our routine days.  But have empathy for those who are struggling to escape their life experiences and expectations.

It’s not supposed to be anything

There is supposed to be a kind of arc, a youthful embrace of change followed by an adult settling into a safe routine.  But Pleasantville challenges this arc.  While it certainly does celebrate youthful change, it makes it clear there is no winning, there is no right ending.  There’s just uncertainty.  Ready Player One is about what happens if you reject that uncertainty.  This is playing out at a large scale across our society.  People miss the factories… but you know, the factories were kind of terrible too.  We can’t go back.  It’s not coming back.  All you really get to choose is whether you’re going to be James Halliday and Wade Watts, endlessly jumping through a portal into an unchanging past, or if you’re going to be David, finding that there is beauty in change after all.

Infinity War and The Wrath of Khan

SPOILERS

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a movie about consequences.

Heroes usually have the luxury of avoiding consequences, as they go from episode to episode always succeeding. Star Trek II is quite explicitly about how Kirk has avoided consequences for his entire life, starting with him beating the Kobayashi Maru scenario at Starfleet Academy.

David: Lieutenant Saavik was right: You never have faced death.
Kirk: No, not like this. I haven’t faced death. I’ve cheated death. I’ve tricked my way out of death and – patted myself on the back for my ingenuity.

In Star Trek II the consequences all come at once, whether it is a long-forgotten enemy or a son.
And in the end, the ultimate consequence, the death of Spock.

Which, in usual Heroic fashion, turns out to be reversible in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

James T. Kirk: [Looking up from the planet surface to see the remains of the Enterprise burning in the atmosphere] My God, Bones, what have I done?
Leonard McCoy: What you had to do, what you always do. Turned death into a fighting chance to live.

And Star Trek II and Star Trek III are about the dialogue between the needs of the many and the needs of the few, or the one.

Sarek: But at what cost? Your ship. Your son.
James T. Kirk: If I hadn’t tried, the cost would have been my soul.

Infinity War Part 1 is definitely also about consequences, as I have written in Infinity War Part 1 – a universe out of balance. Presumably Infinity War Part 2 will be about the search to undo what has been done in Part 1.

I have to say that Star Trek II & III are rather more elegantly and clearly about these philosophical questions and about the consequences of a lifetime of heroic actions, but these ideas nevertheless are in Infinity War and (presumably) will emerge in Part 2 as well.

Infinity War Part 2

In ROT13 because spoilers.

Gur trareny bhgyvar vf cerggl pyrne, naq vf onfvpnyyl: Gvzr Fgbar.
Bgure guna gung, vg frrzf irel yvxryl gung Pncgnva Zneiry jvyy cynl n ebyr, naq gung Gbal Fgnex jvyy nyfb or xrl. (Guvf vf n svggvat flzzrgel, tvira gung Veba Zna ynhapurq gur Zneiry Pvarzngvp Havirefr va 2008.)

Gurer’f n cbffvoyr vagrerfgvat pyhr sebz gur Zneiry qrfpevcgvba bs gur (znyr) Pncgnva Zneiry (Zne-Iryy), va gur Cebgrpgbe bs gur Havirefr frpgvba: “Gunabf orpnzr pbaivaprq gung ur unq qenvarq gur Phor bs vgf cbjre naq qvfpneqrq vg, nyybjvat Pncgnva Zneiry gb teno gur Phor naq erfgber ernyvgl gb n gvzr orsber Gunabf unq tnvarq pbageby bire gur havirefr.”

Gur erfg vf cerggl zhpu qrgnvyf.

Va Vasvavgl Jne Cneg 1, vg’f vagrerfgvat gung znal bs gur fgbarf ner jba ol Gunabf jura fbzrbar tvirf gurz hc gb fnir n fvatyr yvsr. Ybxv tvirf Gunabf gur oyhr Fcnpr Fgbar sebz gur Grffrenpg gb fnir Gube (naq qvrf nf n pbafrdhrapr). Tnzben tvirf Gunabf gur ybpngvba bs gur benatr Fbhy Fgbar gb fnir Arohyn (naq qvrf nf n pbafrdhrapr). Qe. Fgenatr tvirf Gunabf gur terra Gvzr Fgbar gb fnir Fgnex (naq qvrf nf n pbafrdhrapr). Ner gurer tbvat gb or nal pbafrdhraprf gb gur snpg gung yvirf jrer serryl tvira sbe nyzbfg rirel fgbar?

Gur rzcunfvf ba Gunabf naq Gvgna (juvpu vf n cynarg, abg Fnghea’f zbba Gvgna) vf vagrerfgvat. V pbhyq frr gur Gvzr Fgbar orvat hfrq gb jvaq onpx gb Gunabf ba Gvgna ybat ntb naq univat uvz unir gb svaq n orggre pubvpr guna xvyyvat unys gur crbcyr. Cerfvqrag Gunabf bs Gvgna? Be jvaqvat onpx gb Tnzben’f cynarg naq univat uvz znxr n qvssrerag pubvpr (guvf frpbaq bcgvba frrzf dhvgr hayvxryl).

Vapvqragnyyl guvf tvirf zr na bccbeghavgl gb zragvba gung guvf irefvba bs Gunabf vf onfvpnyyl n cnegvphyneyl haercragnag Nagba Xnevqvna / Xbqbf “gur Rkrphgvbare” bs Gnefhf VI, rkprcg jvgu yrff Funxrfcrner.

Vg’f cbffvoyr gung fbzr bs gur punenpgref jvyy unir gb qvr. V pbhyq frr Gube qlvat. Znlor abg Gbal Fgnex abj gung ur’f zneevrq. Ohg zbfg jvyy pbzr onpx.

Vg nyfb erznvaf gb or frra jurgure gur hfr bs gur Gvzr Fgbar jvyy nyfb haqb zhpu bs gur qrfgeblrq jbex bs cerivbhf zbivrf. Thneqvnaf bs gur Tnynkl – fnirq Knaqne. Vasvavgl Jne – xvyyrq unys be zber bs gur Knaqnevnaf? Gube: Entanebx – fnirq Nftneq (va gur sbez bs fbzr bs vgf pvgvmraf). Vasvavgl Jne – xvyyrq Nftneq (va gur sbez bs nyy bs vgf pvgvmraf fnir Gube).

Cneg 2 unf nyernql orra fubg. Fperrajevgref Puevfgbcure Znexhf naq Fgrcura ZpSrryl unir fnvq “Jr qba’g jnag — naq pregnvayl bgure zbivrf unir orra npphfrq bs guvf — gb gryy bar ovt fgbel, phg vg va unys, naq fgrny lbhe zbarl.” Vg’f uneq gb frr ubj guvf jba’g or gur pnfr hayrff Cneg 2 vf ernyyl n frevbhf qrcnegher. Gurl fnl vg vf: “Jr vagraq gurz gb or irel qvssrerag rkcrevraprf,” ZpSrryl fnlf. “Gurl ner cenpgvpnyyl qvssrerag traerf, V’yy gryy lbh gung. Vg jvyy srry gung jnl. … Jr jbhyq yvxr gb gryy gjb pbzcyrgr [fgbevrf].”

“N dhrfgvba naq na nafjre,” Znexhf nqqf.

Cerfhznoyl gur dhrfgvba vf “Qb gur arrqf bs gur znal bhgjrvtu gur arrqf bs gur srj, be gur bar?” (v.r. ubj qb gevyyvbaf bs yvirf jrvtu ntnvafg n fvatyr yvsr?) naq gur nafjre va hfhny zbivr snfuvba vf “gur arrqf bs gur bar bhgjrvtu gur arrqf bs gur znal”. Guvf vf nyernql n gurzr vagebqhprq va Cneg 1. Naq vg zvtug rira or Gunabf va gur raq jub haqbrf jung ur qvq, fb gung ur zvtug erfgber whfg bar yvsr, Tnzben.

Previously:
August 20, 2017 watching the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Movie Better Than Book

It’s not common, but sometimes a movie can be better than a book. Clearer, more focused, or just reimagined.

Neverending Story by Michael Ende – The book drags on, including a war. The 1984 movie is a much more focused, clearer story. Incidentally the Neverending Story II (1990) and Neverending Story III (1994) are terrible. In my usual approach to my personal canon, I have decided they don’t exist.

(Sequels with rollerblades are terrible. 1985’s Return to Oz… rollerblades. Terrible.)

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick / Blade Runner – The book is typical Philip K. Dick, which is to say weird, dense, hard to follow. The 1982 Blade Runner movie is much better.

Movie Different Than Book

It’s pretty hard to compare Jumanji by Chris Van Allsburg to the the 1995 movie, as Jumanji is a short kid’s picture book. The core ideas are in the book, but basically the entire storyline of the movie with the town and the kids is added. It made a pretty good movie.

Movies Adapted Into Books

This is a whole other universe that I will mention but not explore. Pretty much every major science fiction and fantasy movie that didn’t originate as a book has a book adaptation. Sometimes they illuminate or give a different view of the story. For example E.T. (E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial in his adventure on earth) by William Kotzwinkle in 1982 has rather more Dungeons and Dragons than you might expect. And continues into its own (not very good) 1985 sequel E.T. The Book of the Green Planet.

Also see previous post: Book Better Than Movie.