OMGZ, I saw this update on FB today (I ‘Liked’ HTTYD back in its release) and instantly ‘Shared’ it! I want to shout this from the top of the world! spreads arms GO BABY…!!! 
And just in time for my birthday! How awesome is that?
October 22 in Germany.
The Blu-ray/DVD combo pack will be exclusive to Amazon, though.
October 15!?! One day before my birthday! Yes!
I’m a huge fan of her, Czarine! She does the best Night Fury pictures (and of foxes, too!).
It’s funny how I didn’t even ‘watch’ her for the HTTYD stuff. That came later. 
By the way, this might hit as old news… But did you guys know the deviant known as ‘rufftoon’ was a storyboard artist for this movie? 
I’ve been watching her for many years for her Avatar art (which she storyboarded for too).
Great Odin! 
Really? I’ve adored her ‘Egyptian Cat’ comics since I read them in the Flight anthologies two-three years ago, and recently discovered her on dA, but I didn’t know she actually worked on HTTYD! One more reason to be her fan, I suppose!
I just saw the film again. Sorry if I make any of you mad but… Grade: C
It is entertaining and cool, but there is no plot or character development at all!
Of course it has a plot, but whether it’s good or bad is up to debate.
And character development? THE ENTIRE VIKING TRIBE MADE A CHANGE OF HEART! o.o Could you at least explain with… you know, arguments? Your post has none.
I am lost… Have we watched the same movie?
I sort of see what TAMATER means here. First of all it is certainly entertaining and cool. It’s funny at times and the amazing flying scenes make it the best 3D movie since Avatar. There is a plot, but it sort of divides into two. One being Hiccup trying to become a dragon-killer/viking in order to please his father. The other is the vikings venturing into the dragons’ nest in order to stop them once and for all. Both of these blend into the main plot of Hiccup becoming friends with Toothless and ultimately helping him to fly. It is a bit frutstrating for me that the two smaller plots aren’t as interesting to me as they probably should, but then again it’s intended for children.* Either I feel like I want a stronger story, or I feel frustrated during the scenes with Hiccup and Toothless when the story has to cut back to the other plots. About there being no character development at all, I wouldn’t go that far, but especially with the kids it could’ve been improved on. While Astrid was good for being the love interest, she has little dialogue and is the only one of the other kids (besides Hiccup) who has relatively strong character development. The other kids are there only as props and for comedic relief. I’m not saying that they offer nothing to the story, because they provide significant help during the final battle, but I’m saying that you could’ve replaced them with any other kids and it would still be the exact same. Again this is all my opinion and in the end the pros out weighed the cons. I usually hate Dreamworks and when I first saw this I didn’t like it, mainly because I thought the kids were annoying. However it grew on me over time and became my favorite Dreamworks film, and the only one that can be considered as a worthy oponent to Pixar (although it would still lose that fight). I realized that through my nit-picking I had failed to realize how good it was in comparison to other films. Most movies that come out are average, and this was the best movie of 2010 so far! But even though I love this movie, it isn’t perfect so I gave it a rating of: 3 1/2 breast-helmets out of 4.
*I hate the phrase “kid movies” and what I hate even more are people who refuse to see a movie that holds this title. It is slapped on to movies of all sorts (good and bad) and instantly is regarded by average movie watchers as childish and lame. Some of my favorite movies ever are kids films, and I don’t mean just Pixar.
Yeah, what he said. 
Well, honestly, you DONT want deep character development for all of the minor characters… they’re minor for a reason. If they would all have deep character development, it would disctract from the main storyline, it would be like watching several different movies at the same time, which is disorienting and annoying.
A large group of people worked on this story for years, so I think these people at least thought about it well enough for it to turn out the best way it possibly could. 
I’m sorry, but I feel like you’re complaining for the sake of complaining, rather than actually having serious issues with it. :')
I honestly love the kids. They have such fun personalities, and the movie wouldn’t be half as interesting without them. (I have this strange love for the twins in particular, I don’t even know why. I always love seeing sibling rivalry in a movie, I guess. ) Agreed, not much character development as far as they go, but as was mentioned by Czarine, minor characters usually don’t undergo much character development in a film anyway, so I’m not sure why you’ve got a qualm with that.
I’m lost at the flat-out accusation of “no” character development in HtTYD. Stoick happens to have one of the most dramatic changes of heart out of all the characters in the whole movie! Hiccup grows as a character and becomes bolder and more confident in himself by the end of the movie. I don’t particularly like Astrid’s rather… swift development (I could kinda rant on that, actually xDD), but aside from that I think this movie has plenty of character development… not to mention a plot, which again was already argued.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Czarine on that. Chuckles made some very good points, but maybe it’s the fact that this story was actually a very good one for Dreamworks that makes me defend it so much. Yes, it has its flaws, but every single movie does… including Pixar’s. You really have to give DW props for what they’ve failed to do in the past, and finally accomplished in this movie - and that is delivering a truly heartwarming film, which is, in my very humble opinion, truly of Pixar caliber. For that, I continue to applaud them.
little chef
I’m actually talking about development from the main characters.
Hiccup: Man I’m a loser. Hey look a dragon
Hiccup’s Dad: You will be a viking
Hiccup to self: I don’t wanna. Hey, Astrid is hot.
Astrid: I don’t like you but obviously will.
Hiccup: Let’s go rescuee a bunch of dragons.
Hiccup’s Dad: I accept you for who you are.
There is really only one change between the characters.
Chuckles: Firstly, you made a couple of good points. The story is relatively simple, and I would have liked for more devotion on aspects such as Hiccup’s mother, or Astrid’s development ([spoil]she hates Hiccup’s guts, and in a matter of a few minutes, has a 180 change of heart and actually plants a smacker on him[/spoil]). Pixar always fleshes-out all of their characters, something which Dreamworks is only just starting to learn to do.
However, I would argue about the lack of development for the minor characters for HTTYD. As Czarine and little_chef said, they are not meant to have any deep characterisations, because they serve as a supporting act to the main protagonists’ story. And some of them such as Snotlout and Tuffnut actually do go through some form of development (They have a violent disposition towards dragons but then learn they’re not as aggressive as they think they are).
And this is not just exclusive to Dreamworks. Pete Docter mentions that they changed Muntz’ ending to better support Carl in the DVD extra of Up. And of course, the whole plethora of side characters in Toy Story 3 who are woefully underused (Oh, how I wish you soliloquized more, Mr Pricklepants!). But the most important thing for minor characters are their personalities and whether they endeared themselves to you or were just annoying. The ones in Dragon were much better and more ‘useful’ than say Morty from Madagascar, or that little prawn from Shark’s Tale. They serve a purpose to advance the story (in this case, as an allegory of the mob mentality of ‘hate groups’, or to show how Hiccup is ostracized in his society), instead of ‘oh-look-at-the-cute-critter’ window dressing.
I did like your rating though, Chuckles. 
Uh, you’re forgetting a certain Night Fury?
If that’s the way you see it I think you missed some serious turning points in the movie. o.o
Hiccup, at the start of the movie, wants to kill dragons very badly because his dad wouldn’t see him as a failure anymore and he might just get popular among the other vikings as well. He then confronts a dragon that DOESNT kill him, the most dangerous one of all even, while the vikings told him a dragon would always grab his chance to kill. Hiccup continues observing this dragon, at some point even befriends it and finds out that ‘everything they know about them is wrong’. Then Astrid comes along and, gets ‘kidnapped’ by Hiccup to show her that his dragon friend isn’t the monster she thinks he is… and well, after that she made a rather swift change of heart, I can actually agree on that. But then they find out the reason why the dragons raid their villiage; if they don’t do so they’ll be killed themselves. So Hiccup wants to put an end to it, and in his final exam wants to show that dragons can be friendly, which doesn’t end well because said dragon is startled by Stoick and starts attacking. Toothless comes to the rescue, gets taken, father feels like his son has betrayed him and his village and disowns him and takes the dragon to lead him and the village to the dragon’s nest. The ‘minor characters’, still amazed by Hiccup’s skills in the ring and actually consider him as a friend now, were gathered by Astrid (who they look up to as well), and join Hiccup in his plan to rescue the village and down a… rather oversized dragon. Stoick, who is under attack, finds out the truth (the giant dragon dictator revealed himself) and finds his son trying to boldly rescue the whole village and willing to save his life to save his dragon friend. I’m sorry, but if that wouldn’t have convinced Stoick, it would have been a pretty retarded character. Stoick saves his son from drowning, saves the dragon his son wanted to save. Hiccup then mounts the dragon to whoop some ass and Stoick admits to Hiccup he was wrong and apologises. Hiccup accepts them and then kicks some fat dragon butt and saves the day… it cost him a limb, but hey, success is success.
That’s all the character development in a nutshell.
By the way, you can reduce every movie to a few lines like that, it’s not hard and it doesn’t prove anything.
Wall-E: Trash robot is stranded on a starcruiser following his crush around and ends up saving humanity.
Up: Old man learns important life lesson…
Toy Story 3: Andy goes to college, his toys are accidentally left in a daycare and need to return to said owner before he leaves.
See what I did there? :l
Haha, I love your synopsis, Czarine! And good point on the ‘plot-reduction’ argument too, I get annoyed when people knock on movies for having simple storylines (like Avatar, but that’s for another thread). Isn’t brevity the soul of wit?
applauds wildly
I just read probably the most amazing thing I’ve ever read in my life, Czarine. You couldn’t have summed it up better, and I love your short summary of the entire movie. Wonderfully well done - I don’t think you could have proven our point any better than you did in that post alone.
TDIT: I agree, and it’s the movies that have the simple storylines that end up turning out better because they don’t get too complex or confusing. Some people come at it with a “this basic storyline has already been done before” argument, but really, how much more original can you get these days? Movies and plays and books have been around for ages, and no matter what you see or read, there will always be similar storylines because you can only come up with something original so many times. After that, all you can do is take a basic plot structure and build something unique out of it, so I don’t really buy that argument anymore.
Just keep in mind that Pixar has also followed the “this-basic-plot-has-already-been-done” approach before you argue that about this one.
little chef
Well, very complex/confusing storylines can be cool as well, Inception being the perfect example. It’s an intellectual challange, and if well performed, entertaining too.
But in this case (HTTYD), complexity would have been useless…