What went wrong?
Without saying
>Muh dragon-loving mother who fell in love with a dragon after she got kidnapped by it, and she never returned.
>Muh mind-controlled Toothless killing my father
>muh 2 giant rhino elephant dragon thing with mind control.
>muh very shit ending fight with the "alpha" dragon where toothless gains glowing abilities.
>Hiccup's character and his voice actor is still a giant faggot.
Try to mention the problems of this movie without resorting to what I just said.
Other urls found in this thread:
strawpoll.me
strawpoll.me
twitter.com
It's a sequel
Overworked, unappealing designs that cluttered the frame and turned everything into an indistinguishable mess once action started.
Do you even recall what the bad guy looked like?
He was a big hairy viking man I think?
catering to test audiences.
Valka was meant to be a villain of the movie. But nawww, let's play it safe for money. Same goes for KFP3.
Don't forget how they stripped Astrid of literally all her features.
So what was wrong with it outside of the overall shitty plot?
How about...
PETA levels of Dragon Love > Humanity? Though the movie did have the dragons used as devestating weapons, but at the same time they're not supposed to be sentient, they're supposed to be regular animals. Horses can be bros to knights but a knight isn't going to become one with the herd.
The movie also felt like it really needed to be edgy.
And it was way too overhyped.
This. They got money so they sequeled the nice, simple designs from the first movie into an overtextured blob.
I think it was good they timeskiped them right into adulthood. Teens worked well for the first film but they needed to grow up and not get stuck like that.
>Muh dragon-loving mother who fell in love with a dragon after she got kidnapped by it, and she never returned.
I didn't care about her herself, it was more what her existence did to the world and the main character. It made everything Hiccup was and did in the first movie seem incredibly unremarkable.
>this character didn't accomplish this great feat because of their own abilities or merit, or even because of what makes them special, no.
>it was genetic
>it was fate
or
>It was DESTINY!
Fuck off you lazy piece of shit writers.
Wasn't the mom supposed to be the real antagonist in the first draft? Seemed way more interesting than the washed-up shit we ended up getting.
Eh I still like it.
Music was amazing. It just seemed muddled up, so many good ideas crammed into one movie.
he responsible killing his father .
The only character who wasn't a complete dumb shit in that entire movie was the blacksmith. I hated every single person and their motivations. Also the ending climax was boring and uninspired.
>All the little dragons gang up on the big one and win
Gee I wonder I saw that one before. The first movie felt so much more inspired
kek this is the one that killed Dreamworks forever
I was never really for the idea of "MC gets the bestest dragon evur!" plot..
I'd rather they made a few movies about the books. Because I want my terrible terror modeled Toothless voiced by David Tennant
And skinny berserker Fishlegs.. and backstabbing Snotlout
Valka's mere existence completely ruined Stoick's character. In the first movie Stoick's problem was that he couldn't connect with his son, they were too different, there had never been a Viking like Hiccup before and Stoick had no idea how to handle that. With this new movie though, turns out there was a Viking like that before and Stoick understood her and connected with her enough to marry her. Huh. I guess he was just an abusive father who hated his son then.
Also the villain was right: his method for training dragons was superior to Hiccup's method. When he found dragons personally trained by Hiccup he easily cowed them into submission.
Hell, can you imagine the scene where Stoick says "We need less of... all this!" *gestures to Hiccup* if Valka had never left and was standing right next to Stoick. Awkward.
Yeah. Has it's flaws but it's good overall.
You people are such wieners
The weiners are correct. It's a shithouse follow-up to a good movie.
>they're not supposed to be sentient
Are they not? They always seemed pretty aware.
Muh mind-controlled Toothless killing... oh
They're explicitly referred to as pets.
Valka probably wasn't as weird before she spent a decade Goodall-ing.
Why don't you like this movie I thought it was as good as the first movie?
HTTYD1 is:
We see her in flashback before Goodall mode, she was still stick thin and full of un-Viking like ideas regarding dragons.
What the hell happened to Valka's boobs?
whatever you say,
the music mas god-tier.
this always nagged me
The music and the older character designs were the only redeemable things in the movie.
Literally the only thing we knew about her before HTTYD2 was that she was well endowed.
Actually as a massive fanboy of this film this is the first good criticism i've read, Ill find some way to put my fingers in my ears though and come up with an excuse
I wish this one was released in the west
meant to post it to
My big issues were
>Villain was built up to be an extremely interesting nemesis, but when you meet him he feels extremely flat and dull
>The secret to controlling dragons is evilly yelling at them
>Newly introduced character is forgettable
>Father character who is one of the best characters dies, and is basically covered by a far less interesting mother character beyond her connection to dragons
>Whether you like it or not, that "alpha Toothless" asspull was not satisfying, and felt like no effort was made for the climax
Hiccup's mother being the villain would've been a lot more interesting.
It was flawed but altogether good.
The humans r bad stuff just comes with the industry at this point.
Astrid is thin and everyone thinks she's attractive. And the whole 'honor of killing a Nightmare' thing (along with the psychotic twins) shows us that the village is willing to accept a little strangeness as long as it's accompanied by competence. Once Hiccup stopped being a burden on everyone and running out during battles, they were more willing to accept him.
It's hypocritical, but understandable.
The key phrase there was 'stick-thin' not just thin. Astrid and the twins are lithe, powerful and confident in themselves. Hiccup and Valka are weedy, awkward and full of self doubt. There's quite a difference.
>Newly introduced character is forgettable
Fuck I did forget about him. What was his name again, Erret? Did he even have any sort of role to play in the movie?
...yandere fodder?
sasuga Vikings
bump
None of the characters had an arc.
There's nothing interesting about a character who shows Hiccup the beauty of dragons if Hiccup already knows. She would have been interesting either as the villain, or if Hiccup met her in the first movie after being banished from the village.
They want to make sure they establish how cool dragons are because they promised the movies were going to end like the books do.