How To Train Your Dragon - Live action

[Techwright]

The teaser dropped for the live action version of "How To Train Your Dragon".

 

 

Thoughts: 

1. Good to have Gerard Butler back in the role of Stoic the Vast.  I do wonder though about Gerard's, well, vastness.  Had he lived, Ray Stevenson might have made an excellent choice for Stoic's physical presence, and Ray would have had the acting chops to pull it off.  Still, Gerard's the man.

2. I'm a little concerned about some of the other casting choices, but not Nick Frost.  The man will make an excellent Gobber.

3. CGI looks reasonable, but for a title of this magnitude, I feel it needs more polish.  Also, interesting choice making Toothless' eyes a darker green than in the animation.  I'm not personally sure if I like the change or not.  I'll probably just go with it.  I didn't see any moment at which the pupils moved to their signature squarish look.  Toothless has very expressive pupils: round, cat-slits, square, and subtle variations on those.

4. And for my controversial point:  Why?  Why do we need a live action version, which really is a CGI animation version with live actors shoehorned in, I mean even the backgrounds appear to have at least some CGI,...(breathe)... so, why?  The original film was a masterpiece.  If we needed another run of it, polish the 3D animation using the latest techniques.  Each successive 3D animated film in the series was visually better than the former ones.  Bringing them to a new very-fine and final standardization, then re-releasing would have been fine for me.

[Luminara]

So... they're George Lucasing it.

 

I'll stick with the originals.

[TygerDarkstorm]

Definitely putting this in the why do we need this category. Toothless and just about everything look like they're ripped straight out of the existing animated movies and looks like we might be headed for a shot for shot remake of the existing movie. That's one of the biggest reasons I hated the "live action" version of the Lion King (along with the stupid "realism" look of the CGI).

[Ghost]

It’s because Hollywood is struggling.

So they try to find ways to tap into what made them money in the past.

 

Sequels, prequels, remakes, reimaginings, bringing back RDJ

 

I just wish the crash and burn would hurry up, so a new crop of studio heads, writers and directors could step up and be given a chance.

Edited November 20 by Ghost

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

7 hours ago, TygerDarkstorm said:

Definitely putting this in the why do we need this category.

Hard agree. Toothless looks like he's had hours of detail and love in the CGI studio, but somehow... not as much soul as the animated version.

I'm also not sure from the "first pets" bit whether they created a practical head for Toothless or if he's all CGI.

For closeups (in things like GoT and HotD), having a real animatronic build makes all the difference for audiences and actors.

We can tell, not just from the detail shading and lighting, but from how an actor behaves. A tennis ball on a stick is a difficult thing to relate to.

 

And I guess since both humans and dragons were animated with the same techniques and style in the original, you had an easier time accepting them as part of that world. Now, I'm looking at the art and thinking "that's nice, but it's not real", rather than just getting on with the story.

 

Very personal pet peeve: it also sounds like they've messed with that musical score - way better than a kids' adventure movie deserved, and now showing up as shorthand for Scotland in every damn cheap TV production. (But we don't mind a bit🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿). It sounds like they've handed it to one of those YouTubers who Epic-izes things. YARGH.

 

When something's this good already, why mess with it?

Edited November 20 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[Ulysses Dare]

I'm always baffled by the notion that a live action version that requires significant CGI is a good idea. Live action's advantage is that it's cheaper for most things: just point the camera and shoot. If the star of your movie is going to be 100% animated why are you not simply making an animated movie? It won't cost any more; in fact, it will probably cost less. But the prejudice that animation isn't a 'real" medium trumps all.

[Techwright]

15 hours ago, Ghost said:

It’s because Hollywood is struggling.

So they try to find ways to tap into what made them money in the past.

 

Sequels, prequels, remakes, reimaginings, bringing back RDJ

 

I just wish the crash and burn would hurry up, so a new crop of studio heads, writers and directors could step up and be given a chance.

 

Despite the ending of HTTYD 3, I find great potential in the franchise still.  Consider that it is a fantasy geography in the films, not a parallel "real" Earth.  That lends itself to exploration, something Vikings do very well.  Next consider that Viking lands were not the only ones fixated on dragons.  So what's to stop the people of Berk from discovering Germanic, British (well, English or Welsh, since Burk seems to be hybrid Viking-Scottish), or even Asian dragons?  Perhaps the "Germanic" dragons actually are the vicious types, leading to a need for the return of Toothless and Co. .  Frankly, I'd love them to take a page from the Dragonheart franchise and have the Berkians discover Asian dragons.  There's so much potential with that.

 

In other words, there's no reason to rehash on an established masterpiece, and enough reasons to move forward with fresh material within that creative universe.

 

 

Edited November 21 by Techwright
corrected proper name

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

28 minutes ago, Techwright said:

Frankly, I'd love them to take a page from the Dragonheart franchise and have the Burkians discover Asian dragons.

Or going the other way: Vikings definitely made it to Newfoundland, and may have explored further. So you could have the Berk crew running into some First Nations legends like Wendigo or Qalupalik, or land further south and meet a Thunderbird. 

[biostem]

I don't understand why they have to retread what's already been covered;  They've established this wonderful world full of different types of dragons;  Why not just have a new story taking place somewhere else in that same world?

Edited November 21 by biostem

[Techwright]

2 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

Or going the other way: Vikings definitely made it to Newfoundland, and may have explored further. So you could have the Berk crew running into some First Nations legends like Wendigo or Qalupalik, or land further south and meet a Thunderbird. 

 

A Thunderbird actually makes sense.  Some of the descriptions sound more reptilian than avian, which would pair nicely with a previously undocumented dragon type.  Despite the mythical world of HTTYD, if they're going with Viking era, the population they should encounter would be the Mississippian culture, the predecessors of known modern tribes.

[biostem]

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

Some of the descriptions sound more reptilian than avian

I mean, "feathered dragons" aren't the most outlandish thing ever, in a fantasy setting...

 

EDIT:  Corrected typo.

Edited November 21 by biostem

[Techwright]

13 hours ago, biostem said:

I mean, "feathered dragons" are the most outlandish thing ever, in a fantasy setting...

 

 

Considering one of the dragons sketched in the guide Hiccup read in the first HTTYD looked to be heavily influenced by the triffid on the cover art for the book "Day of the Triffids", I'd say a feathered dragon would not be the most outlandish creature in the HTTYD legendarium.

[biostem]

1 hour ago, Techwright said:

Considering one of the dragons sketched in the guide Hiccup read in the first HTTYD looked to be heavily influenced by the triffid on the cover art for the book "Day of the Triffids", I'd say a feathered dragon would not be the most outlandish creature in the HTTYD legendarium.

I mistyped and should have said "aren't".  My bad...

[Excraft]

On 11/19/2024 at 10:41 PM, TygerDarkstorm said:

Definitely putting this in the why do we need this category.

 

Yup.  Another fine example of Hollywood churning out movies no one asked for. 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

On 11/25/2024 at 3:53 PM, Excraft said:

Another fine example of Hollywood churning out movies no one asked for. 

I'm slightly ambivalent about the Lilo and Stitch do-over for different reasons. It's probably my favourite non-Pixar Disney movie, and proved those guys do have something of a sense of humour. Not to mention someone capturing the sheer joy/terror/shock of catching your first wave in animation.

 

Writer/director Chris Sanders is only back as the voice of Stitch, as he's now contracted to DreamWorks: so I'm hoping the new crew will mess with it a bit and play with some new ideas. 

[Techwright]

10 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

I'm slightly ambivalent about the Lilo and Stitch

Yet another Disney live-action treatment?   Disney has gone to the Armenians. 

Wait, I think I got the phrase wrong.

 

Regardless...I'll tell you one animation-to-live action Disney treatment I'd like to see:  The Black Cauldron.  My 6th grade (roughly 12 years old for those outside the USA) student teacher read the book by Lloyd Alexander to us, so the animated movie a few years later was interesting to me.  But clearly it was not so to a great many others.  Giving it a live-action treatment, possibly expanding it into a couple of movies or a mini-series for D+, and holding it close to the book series would give them a chance to correct their mistakes, introduce something that literally two generations now have not learned about, and maybe, just maybe, invoke a nostalgia feeling in Gen-Xers that will make the animated version meaningful again.

[TygerDarkstorm]

16 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

I'm slightly ambivalent about the Lilo and Stitch do-over for different reasons. It's probably my favourite non-Pixar Disney movie, and proved those guys do have something of a sense of humour. Not to mention someone capturing the sheer joy/terror/shock of catching your first wave in animation.

Sorry, i know this is off topic, but have you seen the movie Enchanted? It's basically Disney poking fun at themselves and their princess movies. And it also happens to be pretty good.

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

Yes, I've seen and loved Enchanted (and unfortunately seen the D+ only sequel, the appropriately-titled Disenchanted.

Which...was... not... great. The whole bit about "is this movie necessary" very much applies to sequels).

 

Amy Adams is awesome and what a breakthrough movie. McDreamy somehow doesn't project his usual charisma as her urban handsome prince, but James, Tim, Idina and Susan knock it out of the park. It's also stuffed with Disney in-jokes. Really nerdy one below...

 

Spoiler

There's a tiny scene in Robert's office where Giselle's entranced by a fishtank, and a tiny chunk of Part Of Your World is on the soundtrack. But that's not for her: Sam, Robert's secretary, is played by Jodi Benson, aka Ariel. Paige O'Hara (Belle) and Judy Kuhn (Pocahontas) also get tiny guest shots.

 

I don't think they'd have had a crack at this kind of script without Lilo & Stitch and its parody trailers going first.

And Disney certainly seems a touch less po-faced about their image since. 

 

 

Edited November 29 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[GM Crumpet]

I have to fall on the side if "why??". It looks like a shot for shot remake of the original which is already perfect. I'm not sure what having real actors in place of animated actors is going to bring to it. I'm sure it will be great, but only because the original was great. I just don't see the point. 

[WanderingAries]

1/10 for no real dragons

[Techwright]

28 minutes ago, WanderingAries said:

1/10 for no real dragons

Knowing the movie is practically a guaranteed hit and cash cow, their agents were asking too much, which must have been substantial when you consider the price of making CGI dragons.