So, you've probably heard something interesting about this movie. Actually, no, that's a bit misleading, it's not something about this movie specifically that is interesting, it's more something about a different movie that is also the same movie. How to Train Your Dragon is getting the "Live-Action Remake" treatment because... I have no clue why. Seriously, not only is this movie franchise not even twenty years old, but the last movie only came out roughly five years ago, then again Disney is giving Moana the same treatment even though similar can be said about that, really the whole Live-Action Remake trend is just absurd. However, let's pretend there are people who are interested in seeing the upcoming remake, and they want to know if the original is worth watching. So, let's strike while the iron is at a reasonably warm temperature, and let's look at How to Train Your Dragon.
The plot follows Hiccup, the young and not so incredible son of the Viking Stoick, chieftain of the village of Berk, which is frequently attacked by dragons. Hiccup is put to training in order to kill dragons, which is difficult because Hiccup is actually studying dragons, one particular dragon, a Night Fury named Toothless. I heard so much about this movie, I heard critics say it had such a different plot, that is avoided clichés, that is is such a heartbreaking tale, and all I have to say is, I'm sure it was in 2010. Look, the trope "Seinfeld is Unfunny" is about art and media that is hugely innovative and important to their genre, Seinfeld is a sitcom that most modern sitcoms take several cues and gags from, so someone who has grown up on sitcoms made after Seinfeld would go back to it and wonder why it was so innovative and popular. I feel like that is what is going on here for me, How to Train Your Dragon was unique and different for its time, but going back to it after movies like Encanto, Turning Red, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, I see a lot of the influence of this movie in those. I shouldn't be to harsh on this movie for that, but the problem really is that for the first half or so of this movie, it is really standard. I think the reason it is so loved for not going in certain directions is because it made you believe that it was going to go in these directions, and so the first half is fairly standard. The problem is that, again, it's the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope, I imagine a lot of the people who worked on Puss in Boots: The Last Wish were decently influenced by this movie.
But okay, plot is not the saving grace of a movie, I mean I thought Klaus was horribly predictable but I still enjoyed it in the end, so let's talk about the characters. To be fair, the Klaus comparison is not ill-fitting, both movies have very visible character arcs where we can see how the characters move from point A to point B, Stoick gets praise for his character arc. I think my issue is that, these aren't very unique characters to begin with, Hiccup is your dorky protagonist, Astrid is your bad-ass female co-lead, Stoick is your gruff authority figure, like these aren't bad places to start for characters, there is a reason they are tropes, but they do kind of pigeonhole you into one or two arcs. It isn't that these characters are bad, and honestly it isn't even that they're generic that gets to me, it's the fact that the arcs are fairly predictable, like of course Hiccup is gonna end up taking charge of a team, and Stoick is gonna learn the error of his ways. Stoick and Hiccups relationship arc is wonderful, but compared to the later Encanto, it just kind of falls flat.
To be fair though, the animation is pretty solid, it's pretty standard DreamWorks animation, but I will say I absolutely love the fog, it really does make much of the environments look cold and almost lifeless, but for the most part it is pretty standard. To be absolutely fair though, there is one bit I absolutely loved in the movie, it's towards the end after the climax, and Hiccup is in bed and he sees that he lost a leg in the fight. His face and body language is perfect and then cutting to the shot of the floor, revealing his prosthetic was just a brilliant piece of storytelling, again, it is kind of standard, but when it is done well, it is done really well.
I'm actually kind of sad that I don't have better to say about this movie, it really isn't a bad movie, it's like Toy Story, on it's own it is a good movie, and a highly important one as well. I really can see how this movie influenced a lot of the animation landscape of the 2020s, especially in cinema. I really don't have much to say though, it's just an unfortunate victim of the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope. The plot is stuff I've seen, the characters are ones I've seen, and frankly I just think they've been done better. So uh... I guess that does mean I have no reason to want to see the live-action remake. Okay, you what, I'll extend an olive branch here, because I don't think I'll come back to this movie, but I can't say I don't recommend it on any level, again this movie is good at its core and it is influential in its own way, this movie became the start of one of DreamWorks' most notable franchises for a reason, so I do think it is worth seeing at least once, and hey, with the remake coming out, maybe more people will see it. At the very least, we can all agree, live-action remakes are unnecessary and bad!
No comments:
Post a Comment