|
Post by airbusjack on Aug 14, 2012 1:17:01 GMT -5
I thought that the Zippleback was being referred to as male... but I'm not sure where I heard that. What would make a HEAD "female" or "male" though? I personally say, that zipplebacks are all one gender, even with two heads. (see identical twins). it would be strange to see a male/female zippleback, but maybe a rare occurrence so id say, if there is a male zippleback, both the heads are male. if its female, then both its heads would be female.
|
|
|
Post by Trainer Rosabeth on Aug 14, 2012 7:46:38 GMT -5
Mostly because it doesn't adated to the TV show well (i mean did you see episode one) some of us think Gift happen in the middle of the season but Fishlegs already known Meatlung Gender from the beginning so that why i think
|
|
|
Post by carly on Aug 17, 2012 0:06:16 GMT -5
anyone who thinks one male head and one female head would be too strange for kids to handle hasnt seen dragon tales...look up zack and wheezie xD
|
|
|
Post by blackrose108 on Aug 17, 2012 0:24:47 GMT -5
Well it's more of a comedy device in Dragon Tales (ah, nostalgia). But in httyd I think for mating purposes it's a little too complex to go into if they're thinking about the kiddies. I, though, won't mind some clarification on that.
|
|
|
Post by Shade on Aug 17, 2012 5:47:04 GMT -5
HTTYD has never been THAT kid-friendly... It's always been taking risks, as far as the movie's gone, so...
|
|
|
Post by blackrose108 on Aug 17, 2012 6:54:06 GMT -5
I'm not really sure where their target audience is for this franchise. I mean they have TV-PG show so I'm not sure they're trying to make it kid friendly...but then I didn't really sense anything too TV-PG in the first episodes (but then again, everyone who works on the show claims it's gonna be dark, so I guess it'll be a gradual thing).
Still, I think this show will be yet another show with just enough potential to be groundbreaking but it still straddles between wanting to age up but still trying too hard to please the younger kids as well.
Which I'm all for the tone of the first movie, it was a good family movie, but I can easily see the second movie getting darker just because of the scale of the situation and the age up of the main characters...but will Dreamworks take that plot point and just let it be what it is or dumb it down because they want to avoid bringing it into the PG-13 territory we all know it could easily go into?
|
|
|
Post by Shade on Aug 17, 2012 7:21:16 GMT -5
I hope they let it get dark if it wants to get dark. The whole point of telling a story is letting it go where the story wants to go, not where you want it to go.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose108 on Aug 17, 2012 7:35:30 GMT -5
I hope they let it get dark if it wants to get dark. The whole point of telling a story is letting it go where the story wants to go, not where you want it to go. Yes! As a writer myself that's always been my experience, trying to make a story fit into a certain demographic or rating is a harsh reality of working with marketers to advertise the movie (which, let's get real, Dreamworks SUCKS at advertising HTTYD). But ultimately the best movies are the one where you let the story go where it's naturally gonna go and that's just it. The movie was a tricky peg to fit in any direct demographic just because it was deep and dark and complex but it was still an easy enough plot to follow and appreciate. That's just the sign of a great movie is really when everyone can watch it and take something from it. But because it was a little on the....darker side, I can see it being rated PG-13 for perhaps the 3rd movie and it wouldn't seem like a stretch at all. But, rating the show TV-PG in the first place is an interesting move...so let's see how much it lives up to that rating. They have a lot more leeway with that rating then they'll probably utilize but we'll see. But, hey, at least it wasn't rating down to a TV-Y7-FV "Gotta Train 'em All" show.
|
|
|
Post by Shade on Aug 17, 2012 7:54:31 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it better myself, actually...
|
|
|
Post by Trainer Rosabeth on Aug 17, 2012 9:00:53 GMT -5
yup and i think they will make alittle darker though the show (i mean if anyone read the book series it gets darker and darker every book )
|
|
crownflame
Caught Dragon
Excellent Buffet Girl Apprentice
Posts: 166
|
Post by crownflame on Aug 17, 2012 9:38:34 GMT -5
I don't get the fixation on HTTYD being a "dark" "mature" thing though. I mean, that's definitely aspects of what it is, but I seriously doubt anyone wants it to go all the way that route. I mean, that's one of the things I've enjoyed about Cressida Cowell is that she DIDN'T jump into the darker-equals-better mindset. Sure, the stories get heavier toward the end, since that's where the plot's going, but it was never via sacrificing the... well, inherent FUN of the stories.
I mean, fundamentally, we can say whatever we want about it and apply whatever speculations we want, but at its roots, HTTYD is an all-ages series. A kids thing with a distinguished depth to it. Who are we as adults to dictate or demand that an inherently silly series about Vikings and dragons coexisting play more for adult intrigue and less for the enjoyment of younger audiences (than it already is)? Already it has a wonderfully down-to-earth "life kinda sucks, what the heck is a happily-ever-after" mentality. How much further does it need to go?
Honestly I'd rather have things stay on the lighter end and in spirit, then go all DARK AND MUTOOREE only for DARK'S sake. I've seen so many of my favorite franchises fall into that trap, and I'd really hate for this one to do so as well. Darkness =/= profundity. Anyone remember Dr. Seuss?
And I'm not saying that darkness has NO place in the series of course. On the contrary, it's been inherently there from day one, from that first "We are all suppers". I've just been worried, since TEH DARKNESS seems to be something fans are so seriously fixated on and concerned about, that it seems to be in disdain to other potent aspects of the series' spirit (like...fun!).
Right now, I'm not particularly worried. They seem to be making decent decisions thus far, barring bad marketing and cash-grab endeavors. I really don't think what rating classifications it falls under is worth worrying about. The mindset that PG=DUMB KIDDY STUFF and PG-13=ONLY THING WORTHY OF DRAGONS seems pretty obtuse to me. The movie had all kinds of heavy stuff and was GASP: PG.
|
|
|
Post by oneill5491 on Aug 18, 2012 1:05:33 GMT -5
Dreamworks doesn't have the balls to ramp up the mature content in any of their films to garner a PG-13 rating. Same goes for Pixar - much less Disney animation. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but PG-13 is simply too risky of a business move as it would spook too many young kids and protective parents.
I have given it quite a bit of thought, however. The idea of introducing PG-13-worthy thematic elements seems very enticing to me for a film such as HTTYD; I'm thinking mostly in the dramatic violence and gore category.
As an example, I think it would be jaw-dropping shocking and dramatic to have Hiccup consciously decide to take someone's life. In my eyes, it would be a great way to complete his developing character arc to show that he's willing to put blood on his hands to cement his image as a worthy chief; to protect his tribe and fellow dragons.
I have this scene envisioned in my head at the end of the third film where Toothless dangles a villain over the edge of a cliff by the leg. Some dramatic dialog is exchanged between Hiccup and the villain as he tries to determine if there's any redeeming quality to the man that might justify sparing his life. When it's made apparent that there is none, Hiccup gives the order to Toothless to drop him.
Honestly, a scene like that can easily be done with a PG rating since the way I envision it doesn't have much violence or gore, but the act may be a bit too mature, dark, and morally controversial to implement with the kind of PG-rating aurora surrounding animated films.
Seriously though, I look forward to the day where the first high production budget (like $100 million+) CG animated movie comes out wearing a PG-13 badge. The trick is to meticulously balance fairy-tale innocence and beauty that warms the heart while simultaneously introducing realistic mortality, dramatic depth, and angst that can tear at it.
Then again, I have to agree with crownflame. The great thing about the clean, light-hearted, and innocent fanfare of each Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks production is that they're a fun escape from everything else provided by the movie industry, and life to be honest. I still wouldn't mind seeing the aforementioned complex tonal-mix in a future high-budget animated production, but I'm content if the studios stick with the formula that's tried and true.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose108 on Aug 18, 2012 11:26:05 GMT -5
I agree with Oneill, when I think PG-13, I think more of raising the steaks of conflict more then being dark for dark's sake. I, though, would be seriously impressed if Dreamworks decides to be a CGI movie "wearing a PG-13 badge" as Oneill said. It would be a big step up and they'd be reaching out to most of their fandom (which we all know are teens/young adults).
|
|
crownflame
Caught Dragon
Excellent Buffet Girl Apprentice
Posts: 166
|
Post by crownflame on Aug 18, 2012 14:57:06 GMT -5
I have given it quite a bit of thought, however. The idea of introducing PG-13-worthy thematic elements seems very enticing to me for a film such as HTTYD; I'm thinking mostly in the dramatic violence and gore category. As an example, I think it would be jaw-dropping shocking and dramatic to have Hiccup consciously decide to take someone's life. In my eyes, it would be a great way to complete his developing character arc to show that he's willing to put blood on his hands to cement his image as a worthy chief; to protect his tribe and fellow dragons. I have this scene envisioned in my head at the end of the third film where Toothless dangles a villain over the edge of a cliff by the leg. Some dramatic dialog is exchanged between Hiccup and the villain as he tries to determine if there's any redeeming quality to the man that might justify sparing his life. When it's made apparent that there is none, Hiccup gives the order to Toothless to drop him. Honestly, a scene like that can easily be done with a PG rating since the way I envision it doesn't have much violence or gore, but the act may be a bit too mature, dark, and morally controversial to implement with the kind of PG-rating aurora surrounding animated films. Doesn't sound any worse than, say, Lion King. Here's a thing though (and here I go even more off topic, derp). And at this point I can hardly say how relevant of a thing it is. I don't know how familiar you are with the books, but the way Hiccup deals with his villains has always struck me as very profound. In Cressida Cowell's world the thing that ultimately kills a villain (if he ends up actually dying, of course), is his own ego. The idea being that if a villain would just give up his blood grudge for a while, quit being such a Viking (or dragon) and try being... a human, he would survive. In the books, even though Hiccup is an accomplished swordfighter and can defend himself like no one's business, Cowell is very careful to never have him directly murder a villain with his own hands. The villains literally always seal their own fates in their desperation to kill Hiccup. Given, I don't think (in fact, I highly doubt) they'll continue in this vein movieside. In the movie, Hiccup killed the Death head-on, instead of in the indirect fashion he utilizes in the books (again, literally using the beast's ego and rage against it), and given it's more simple and cinematic to fight battles directly, I assume movie Hiccup will be tackling his issues in a more traditional fashion, just because that's more accessible to movie audiences. But it's something I've always found a profound, fascinating thing about how Cowell has set up her stories. And of course, disclaimer: the series isn't over yet, so she could very well be building up to Hiccup's first murder just as you describe here. But she seems to have made it a very intentional point to divert the blade thus far. I mean, you could argue that's weak storytelling, and she just doesn't want to dirty her hero's hands. To me though, it only increases Hiccup's strength because he actively wins via actual emotional maturity (not very highly valued in heroes in today's society!). One of the underlying points of the series being that we're all barbarians, but it's possible to rise above barbarian human nature. But that's all a matter of opinion, I guess. And I digress. Even further than we had digressed. XD Then again, I have to agree with crownflame. The great thing about the clean, light-hearted, and innocent fanfare of each Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks production is that they're a fun escape from everything else provided by the movie industry, and life to be honest. I still wouldn't mind seeing the aforementioned complex tonal-mix in a future high-budget animated production, but I'm content if the studios stick with the formula that's tried and true. I'm not asking for another watered down gooftacular (we hardly need that!) I'm just here wondering why there's such pervasive thinking that "movie with maturity and emotional depth" and " fun, all-ages movie" are mutually exclusive, especially when we're staring HTTYD in the eye, here. I mean, this franchise is living proof that something "for kids" doesn't necessarily have to be frivolous or watered down. Something can have a powerful story with lots of impact, and still be childlike at heart. Something can be "serious" and still carry things that appeal to both children and adults. They're not mutually exclusive things, not at all. A story doesn't have to sacrifice all of its fun and goofiness for the sake of being profound. (And since when does more death/violence/sexuality/adult things=more profound anyway? Again: Dr. Seuss.) My major personal problem being perhaps that I'm perfectly content to think of HTTYD as a "kids" series and accept kids as the primary intended audience (so long as they don't use that as an excuse to write objectively poor stories; which they haven't thus far). From the books on, the series has always been multifaceted as far as who it can appeal to, and I honestly think they're really making an effort to keep it in spirit, rather than making "kid's show" the derogatory term it's kind of become. In the end, though, fundamentally I don't believe it's my place as an adult (and as a fan) to be overly critical about where a series that was originally targeted toward 10 year old boys goes for everyone. (If I want to do that... FANFICTION! ) To what extent can we tell historically inaccurate Vikings to "grow up" before we're suddenly taking historically inaccurate Vikings way too seriously? (Which, given, is easy to do. < ^ this wall of text v > case in point. XD) I mean, clearly the stories will get heavier and more exciting in future installments. They kind of have to. But... wow. There's a LOT they can still do to up the ante and still keep it in a technically kid friendly area. Making things really bloody is only one of many, many, many different tricks in the book to make things more suspenseful, and, more importantly, more profound. XD I bet they'll surprise us with what they come up with, even if it might end up rated the dreaded PG. XD Y R my posts never coherent at all
|
|
|
Post by poofiemus on Aug 18, 2012 20:07:28 GMT -5
I agree, Crownflame. Story quality is *completely* independent of the rating. Honestly, I think the fact that this idea of more intensity leading to higher rating says more about the current movie rating system and our US culture's paranoia about our childrens' "innocence" than it does about any real, plot-relevant handling of subject matter. (Try watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated"; they cover how messed up the MPAA rating system is far more thoroughly and eloquently than I ever could.)
I think the real question is, "If they come up with a good story point, will they ditch it because the MPAA wants to slap a higher rating on it?" Frankly I'm hoping they can continue to handle the story in a way that doesn't make this question any more than a hypothetical. But if they do come up with something intense enough to make the MPAA whine, it'll be interesting to see if they'll embrace the higher rating or not. And honestly, if they don't and change something, it doesn't necessarily mean that the change will be for the worse; sometimes conundrums like that can lead to more creative story treatments. If that's the case, then we probably won't even hear there *was* a conflict until the DVD commentary. =P
|
|