Does anyone else feel that this film, glorified slavery or made it seem situationally acceptable? You can't tell me all those dragons at the end of the film wanted a master after having just killed their last one. Unless there is a species of dragons called the "hypocrites".
shareWell, they're perfectly free to fly away if they don't like it.
All I saw at the end was people riding around on dragons, and dragons being fed a lot of fish. What were they being enslaved to do?
America...Land of the free, because of the brave.
A Marine's Daughter
"All I saw at the end was people riding around on dragons, and dragons being fed a lot of fish."
This is why I used the term glorified. I would bet that if I asked you, if you would like to piggyback your mate around while he ran errands, you would not want to do that. If a camel could speak I'm sure it would say I don't like these reigns on me or the guy/girl on my back as would a horse and so on and so forth. A slave could no longer do his task without being fed. I'm sure the dragon was more than capable of catching fish on it's own without the assistance of a human. Or they may not exist if that was the main component in their diet. If a species cannot adapt to it's environment it's destined to become extinct. Too answer your question simply, read up to your first comma. They are not Go-Karts.
You make a good point, but the dragons can definitely do something about it if they object.
America...Land of the free, because of the brave.
A Marine's Daughter
eh, don't delude him...he's NOT making a good point.
see...mutually beneficial relationships...
In the same way that slaves in the American south could do something about it?
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde
Not unless slaves in the American south had wings to fly away and could breathe gaseous firebombs
A Marine's Daughter
´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:
No, but they totally had legs and could run. And had minds and could kill their masters. They could just as easily harm those oppressing them as the dragons did.
And yet many didn't. Why? And what happened to the few who did?
It seems hard to believe that you're not purposely ignoring the blatant connection.
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde
No, but they totally had legs and could run. And had minds and could kill their masters. They could just as easily harm those oppressing them as the dragons did.
And yet many didn't. Why? And what happened to the few who did?
It seems hard to believe that you're not purposely ignoring the blatant connection.
==============================================================
There's a big difference between running away on land, with dogs and men on horses chasing you, catching you, and dragging you back because they "own" you...and flying off where you cannot be followed. Also, between attacking your master with whatever kind of weapon you could get your hands on and hoping you come out ahead in the fight, and being able to incinerate them from thirty feet away and then disappear.
As to why they didn't run or kill...some of them probably did. I can't say what happened to them, except that they were most likely punished harshly if they were caught, which would definitely discourage others from following their example.
I see no connection, let alone a blatant one, between the slaves in the American south and what end up to be household pets in this movie. No one was capturing them, beating them, chaining them, selling them, raping their females, separating them from their families, or forcing them into unpaid manual labor for someone else's profit.
The dragons were free to literally fly away and never be seen again if they chose, with no one pursuing them. Slaves didn't have that luxury.
A Marine's Daughter
´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:
The dragons were free to literally fly away and never be seen again if they chose, with no one pursuing them
I have no reason to believe that they could fly away without being pursued? Yeah, except for the fact that they could.
Please explain how a Viking could pursue a dragon that flies away? Chase after it in a really fast rowboat?
Then explain what kind of logic dictates that they'd rather go back to killing them than let their (non-existant) control over them be extinct. They had no control over them in the first place, which is why their village was torched on a regular basis. If they started killing them again, the dragons would fight back, and the odds would definitely be on their side. One or two dead dragons (maybe) and lots and lots of dead Vikings.
And there most certainly IS a difference. The dragons were not "conquered" by the Vikings. They were there in the village because they chose to be. The Vikings had no "power as their masters". That's why, in 'Gift Of The Night Fury', when they all flew away, the Vikings couldn't do jack sh!t to stop them or bring them back.
You're totally right. If the only threat was that their species would be hunted and killed if they flew away or were in any way a threat, then of course they're not subjugated. They're there of their own free will and want to be there, because who wouldn't want to live with the guys who just destroyed their queen and their lives as they knew it? That's totally fine. I forgot that was how freedom worked. Thank you for the reminder.
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde
Hunted and killed...how? The vikings couldn't even find any dragons unless their village was being attacked by them. And why would they hunt and kill them after making peace with them? The dragons flew away in Gift of the Night Fury, and no one tried to hunt them down and kill them.
They must have had some amazing technology for tracking down dragons who could fly off in any direction at a seconds notice and completely disappear. Maybe some weapons system that we didn't see in the movie. I don't know, radar..sonar..night vision..rowboats with mach 1 capability?
And I see you think they were all happy to be living with their "queen" who actually DID subjugate them by forcing them to hunt for her and then eating them if they didnt cough up enough food. Is THAT the way freedom works?
They WERE there of their own free will, because otherwise they would leave.
I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
A Marine's Daughter
´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:
The Vikings put boats in the water and forced a dragon to find the nest.
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde
That was before they made peace with the dragons. And, as you saw, the dragons they found all flew away undetected and unfollowed, except for the so-called Queen, who was pissed off and decided to fight.
A Marine's Daughter
´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:
I think you are expressing an overly literal interpretation of the dragons' relationship to the Green Death. There is simply no evidence to suggest the GD was a queen in the biological sense of the word. The dragons are comprised of several different species, none of which are the same species as the GD.
Astrid's speculation of it being a queen was not to be taken as objective fact; she was only making a deduction based on what she observed.
As pointed out previously, the dragons lay their own eggs and have their own offspring, as shown in Gift of the Night Fury. They appear to survive and thrive just find without the GD.
I don't think she was their queen, either. I just used that term in response to the poster above me who used it. To me it was just some ultra dominant species that controlled the other dragons due to its sheer size and viciousness.
A Marine's Daughter
´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:
Yeah, I actually meant to respond to the other poster... I'm not sure if I did or not. Anyway, just thought I'd add in my two bits.
That's all the information we have to go on. Not being given any other information means that we should be predisposed to think of her as the queen.
Furthermore, she could have been the queen. We weren't told she wasn't, and neither were the Vikings. And yet they still did what they did. So my point stands.
I apologize as far as I have not seen Gift of the Night Fury.
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde
I think people aren't making the connection because you are actually trying to compare humans to dragons like the humans could fly and breathe fire and then BOOM! done.
You can only go so far on foot and you actually need to have a plan if you are going to kill another human. You can't just sprout wings and fly away like a dragon can, and be several miles away from the master in minutes. Nor could you quickly burn to them to a crisp, like a dragon could.
It's two entirely different things and that is a terrible connection to make.
They didn't because they were human and knew that they could easily be caught. Not the same with a lot of dragons in force.
So because these dragons can fly away, they are less entitled to freedom, despite the fact that it was shown and proven that they are sentient beings? Because they are more powerful (just as the slaves were more powerful in Greece and the American South), their enslavement becomes voluntary?
You grew up watching a lot of Beauty and the Beast, didn't you?
Surely I misunderstood you.
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde
The dragons were never enslaved, to begin with. It has nothing to do with entitlement to freedom because they were never enslaved, to begin with. They were entitled to their freedom all along as I think someone who mentioned a canon short or something of the film indicates, and they flew away with no issue, obviously indicating that there was no enslavement to begin with.
I believe they were working with the Viking's willingly due to there being sources of food and safety for the dragons. There was nothing indicating that these dragons were being enslaved and kept in captivity, due to their freedom of moving around the Viking's home and them being perfectly happy. I also think that if they weren't happy, the dragons would have rebelled, attacked the village and escaped.
I have no idea how you can even possibly begin to compare the dragons to the real slaves that were human, because once again, (and I find it confusing how you didn't even address the differences that I made), the slaves were humans and the dragons are mythical beings with mythical powers. The dragons could do things that the slaves could not possibly do to help themselves, so that is a highly ridiculous claim and comparison there, I'm afraid.
Yes, being born in the 90's and of that generation, I did. However, I do not see how watching a lot of Beauty and the Beast has to do with anything. If it is some jab at the supposed 'Stockholm Syndrome' idea that is usually connected with the film, I think that is a load of nonsense. The circumstances do not match to me, so if that is what you aiming at, your reference means absolutely nothing to me and I consider it void.
Yes, by the reply that you posted that had absolutely nothing to do with the simplicity of my post, I think you misunderstood me and others that have indicated the same.
You don't think sentient beings being kept as pets is enslavement? You think that as long as they are choosing being kept as capital as opposed to endangering their entire species (i.e. being conquered) isn't enslavement?
That's where we differ. A good day to you, dear.
--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde
What you're suggesting is that owning a pet is slavery. Most people do not consider domesticating a wild animal slavery, except for those PETA zealots.
No Number is best. 3 builds better than 2. 2 loves better than 1 and 1 mind is better than 3.
I don't know about anyone else, but "glorified slavery" almost sounds better than freedom. Nothing in MY life is glorified, dammit...
Do not click on this link without my permission: http://meonvarioustopics.blogspot.com
You forgot to mention that the vikings also kept lambs as slaves. There's also the scene, where Hiccup is eating the fish he murdered for Toothless.
shareYou forgot to mention that the vikings also kept lambs as slaves. There's also the scene, where Hiccup is eating the fish he murdered for Toothless.lulz! share
Thank you for mentioning this. Lets make out.
Favourite movie: Lost In Translation
How dare you make a more legitimate post than the OP! At least yours makes sense.
shareLOL this was really good XD
sharewelll... this is just movie.. lol why u so serious
sharelol why u so serious
The answer to the original post is no. Why? Because the dragons are dogs. They have the same personality and intelligence as dogs. This is what makes Toothless so endearing to us. Feed him, show him kindness, and he becomes your best friend. The relationship is symbiotic. No one is enslaved.
To illustrate further: did you notice that there are no dogs in this movie? Hiccup even talks about other places' pets in the end. He references ponies and parrots. Not dogs. I think its clear the film makers envisioned a world where the dragons become the dogs.
The dragon race is essentially a pack of wild dogs. They want to live with humans, but have not had that option. So they skirmish with humans over food. But again, be nice to them and feed them, and the whole dynamic drastically changes.
It’s cool how the dragon characters were written so they seem at once to be pets or sentient beings. They seem to exist outside of reality, which I guess they do.
When a story uses dragons, they’re symbols, such as symbols of our fears, or the unknown. So you can literalize the story, and that’s fine, but there’s high symbolism here, as well, if you dig deeper. In this story, I think the dragons represent our differences, uniqueness, or parts of ourselves that others find strange. Hiccup practically tells us that Toothless is a reflection of himself. I think each Viking has his or her own dragon that reminds them of themselves. Come to grips with your differences, and you’ve “trained your dragon”. The dragons aren’t “slaves” at all, they’re part of you.
So you can extend this to the big dragon which is a tyrant. It represents abuse and addiction, so you must not buddy up with that dragon (and the dragons were slaves to it). You must get away from that one, but it takes the help of others, outsiders. The outsiders in this story are the Night Fury and Hiccup, who broke the cycle.
-----------------
Incredibly Handsome Master Of All Villainy
I can't, and do not wish to argue with you in a literary sense. You are 100% accurate, and more astute as to literary devices than i will ever be. But I did want to point out the filmmaking genius of this movie. They created a world without dogs, and then made dragons essentially dogs. And I love it. Dragons seem to have high, albeit non-human intelligence. And they are willing to self sacrfice themselves to save their "master". This undying loyalty is part of what endears dogs to dog lovers. Old Yeller dies defending his family from a bear. Toothless risks everything to save Hiccup. He fights his own kind to defend Hiccup. Hiccup does not stand up to his father in the end, to save Toothless
shareI do like how their mannerisms are similar to dogs (and cats). It makes them easy for audiences to relate to them. On a basic level, the movie is often compared to a story of a boy and his dog. It's just that this particular dog breathes fire and you can fly on him.
-----------------
Incredibly Handsome Master Of All Villainy
While I agree with you that the dog(and other animal)-like traits of the dragons are there to endear audiences toward them, the interesting thing about them is that different people interpret them in different ways.
Just as you feel comfortable accepting the dragons as dogs, some people feel they represent cats, and yet many others view them as sentient beings on the level of dolphins, elephants, or even higher intelligences. While I tend toward the latter, I believe that all of those ideas are represented (and even more, speaking symbollically, as Spamtrap elaborated).
The filmmakers have said, and I quote, "it is our hope that people will connect with Toothless on multiple levels". I do believe they've accomplished that.
or even higher intelligences. While I tend toward the latter
This was a thoughtful and highly interesting post, but I do have some quibbles:
Hiccup practically tells us that Toothless is a reflection of himself. I think each Viking has his or her own dragon that reminds them of themselves.
You must get away from that one, but it takes the help of others, outsiders. The outsiders in this story are the Night Fury and Hiccup
Hiccup and Toothless are outsiders in the sense that their actions post-Forbidden Friendship contradict everyone else's, but Hiccup is still a Viking, and Toothless is still a Dragon, so they aren't outsiders in the way some tribe from another island would be outsiders.By "outsiders", I mean how Stoick throws his hands up in exasperation at the start of the story, telling Gobber, "He's always been different". Vikings and dragons all existed in an endless cycle until something came along to change everything.
when Hiccup says he looked at Toothless and saw himself, I think he was specifically referring to the fact that, in that moment, Toothless was scared stiffless over his impending death.I agree he saw the same frightened guy that Hiccup was (you're kinda making my point ). But there's even more. Hiccup asked why the dragon didn't kill him, and it's because the Night Fury "saw himself". I think it's a parallel (one of many in this story).
By "outsiders", I mean how Stoick throws his hands up in exasperation at the start of the story, telling Gobber, "He's always been different".
Vikings and dragons all existed in an endless cycle until something came along to change everything.
I agree he saw the same frightened guy that Hiccup was (you're kinda making my point)
Hiccup asked why the dragon didn't kill him, and it's because the Night Fury "saw himself".
It's no stretch to believe it was written this way deliberately.
Hiccup asked why the dragon didn't kill him, and it's because the Night Fury "saw himself".Or it could be reciprocity. Hiccup let Toothless go, and Toothless repaid the favor. Toothless still glared at him and had him in a death grip. Then Toothless roared in Hiccup's face almost like he's saying "JUST THIS TIME VIKING! FOR LETTING ME GO!" I don't think Toothless saw himself when he didn't kill Hiccup.
"Am I the only one who saw a bunch of heavy stuff going on while the dragon has Hiccup pinned (in like a span of five seconds)? "
No, you're not the only one. This particular scene is what made me realize this was going to be a very special film.
Toothless' eyes conveyed such immeasurable depth of feeling and complex emotions that I could not help but be frozen by them the first time I saw this film. Of course it helped that Toothless' eyes took up almost the entire IMAX screen while a powerful bass, percussion, bagpipe and violin theme (to be repeated when Stoick decided to rescue Toothless) flowed thru my thorax.
Those eyes seemed to be feeling a million things, while at the same time asking Hiccup "should I, or shouldn't I kill you?.... Can I kill you? (I have a hypothesis that the reason Hiccup and Toothless clicked so well was because neither one of them was capable of killing) are you the one who ruined my tail? Why didn't YOU kill me when you had the chance? Why do you keep staring into my eyes? You are so small and weak... Why do I fear you?"
These few seconds in the film truly established how wonderfully deep and emotionally complete this film was for me.
Those eyes seemed to be feeling a million things, while at the same time asking Hiccup "should I, or shouldn't I kill you?.... Can I kill you? (I have a hypothesis that the reason Hiccup and Toothless clicked so well was because neither one of them was capable of killing) are you the one who ruined my tail? Why didn't YOU kill me when you had the chance? Why do you keep staring into my eyes? You are so small and weak... Why do I fear you?"
"Night Fury takes no guff from anybody. He's a “slave”? Not hardly."
Yeah, the OP is definitely entitled to watch HTTYD with a "slave" angle, but I think he's just grasping at straws.
All of the dragons, not just Toothless, demonstrated pride, strength and enormous intelligence. All dragons were portrayed with outer and inner beauty; with a capacity for bravery, selflessness and love. They were shown to be animals... not mythical creatures full of magic, but animals who, in my opinion, were portrayed to be a few steps above dogs or dolphins in intelligence.
At no time, were they shown to be submissive, passive, or having accepted an inferior position with respect to the Vikings. Their wills were only shown to have been coerced with fear and force by the Green Death, but they all escaped at the first opportunity; this would not have been a slave attitude at all (they would have all stayed put, out of fear of Green Death, their wills overcome.)
When I think back on that powerful shot of Toothless staring at Hiccup, I see how it mirrors Hiccup in that Toothless was the first dragon to be magnanimous, curious, forgiving, and ultimately an integral part of a symbiotic bond between human and dragon, which served as an example to Vikings and dragons alike.
Excellent! And there's even more. Those eyes were furious! When I saw that eye, thirty feet tall in the theater, I saw the reflection of the forest in it. Those eyes told Hiccup, “I am the whole of nature. I'm oceans and mountains, I'm majestic trees, I'm wild animals, I'm the Earth itself. Who. Are. You. ...!!!”
Kind of off the subject but could Toothless understand Hiccup's language?
Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.
Kind of off the subject but could Toothless understand Hiccup's language?
Hiccup pondered the dragon's motives for an entire day after that, never understanding the reason (if we are to ignore the reason Hiccup specified)
The only time "So why didn't you [kill]?" is answered, the answer is "I saw myself". If it's a parallel, it fits the symbolism nicely.
But if it's because Hiccup let the dragon go, Hiccup overlooked the "obvious", and the question was never answered.
Am I the only one who saw a bunch of heavy stuff going on while the dragon has Hiccup pinned (in like a span of five seconds)?
If people hate a subject, they really must do better advanced research of the movies they watch
I honestly think you're taking the term "outsider" a bit too seriously. Would you prefer the term "outcast", which implies that the person was previously considered a member of the group? You may not take kindly to it, but that word has been traditionally used to describe a person who is excluded or detached from their their own community or group, in some capacity.
No one suggested that Hiccup was not a member of his tribe, but it's entirely possible to be a member of the tribe and still be excluded from it in all manner of ways. All that is required to be a viking is to be born into that role, and to understand the rules for engagement within that society. You needn't agree with any of the group's practices; you can participate to the minimum extent possible.
In Hiccup's case, he "wanted to be like you guys" only because he didn't see any other way to make friends. It took Toothless to show him that he was applying himself in the wrong direction. He was never a "viking" by his tribe's definition of the word. He didn't really want to be a part of that group - he was merely going through the motions so he could gain respect. He was lying to himself.
Since we're discussing the characters' personalities, I should point out that the official web site used to have personality profiles for each of the vikings and dragons. They no longer appear to have the viking profiles, but they still have the dragon ones...
Here is the Night Fury profile:
"Reclusive, analytical, inventive, and the most intelligent of the known dragon species."
Based on the fact that Toothless is reclusive and the only known Night Fury, I'd say that makes him an outsider in the dragon world, at least as it pertains to Berk. And I'm well aware that I'm probably contradicting your argument by bringing this up, but the Night Fury's traits also sound awfully close to Hiccup's personality...
The following facts are obvious to me:
- Hiccup is reclusive. He has no friends, and he spends his spare time drawing, inventing, and searching the forest for gnomes and trolls.
- Hiccup is analytical. He quickly figures out the mechanics behind things, troubleshoots problems, and makes necessary corrections in order to obtain the outcome he desires.
- Hiccup is at the top of his tribe in intelligence. He routinely applies the scientific method, questions things that few vikings have ever questioned, and is a fast learner.
- Hiccup is inventive.
You can argue that Toothless is more aggressive, but that doesn't mean that their personalities aren't similar in many other ways. Furthermore, Toothless is only aggressive when he's threatened, which is a pretty important distinction.
No one ever said their personalities were identical, but you must look at all the evidence and recognize the similarities that do exist.
Would you prefer the term "outcast", which implies that the person was previously considered a member of the group?
You may not take kindly to it, but that word has been traditionally used to describe a person who is excluded or detached from their their own community or group, in some capacity.
I'd say that makes him an outsider in the dragon world, at least as it pertains to Berk.
You can argue that Toothless is more aggressive, but that doesn't mean that their personalities aren't similar in many other ways.
Toothless is only aggressive when he's threatened, which is a pretty important distinction.
Yes, actually. Outcast is a much much better description of what Hiccup is. I've repeatedly called him the runt of the tribe.It seems like we're mostly on the same page and you're just a stickler for semantics. Unless I'm mistaken, Spamtrap used the word "outsider" in the same context that one might use the word "outcast" or "loner". Everyone knows that Hiccup and Toothless aren't outsiders in the purely literal sense of the word.
But i know where you stand on the loyalty thing from previous discussions with youI have no problem with loyalty, as long as it makes sense. Toothless saving Hiccup's life is one of those cases where it definitely makes sense. What I resent is the idea that Toothless should bow to Hiccup like a puppy dog with no will of his own. It's entirely possible to have someone's back and not be weighed down by your devotion to them.
He wasn't threatened when he divebombed Berk at the beginning of the movie.That depends on what you mean by threatened. Technically, all of the dragons where threatened by the Green Death, which is why they were stealing food in the first place. I would caution against jumping to any conclusions about why Toothless behaves as he does. There is much that we don't yet understand about Toothless and Night Furys, but Dean DeBlois has assured us that many of our questions will be answered in HTTYD 2.
The reason I'm stressing that their personalities are different is because Spamtrap argued that Toothless and the other dragons "represent our differences, uniqueness, or parts of ourselves that others find strange. Hiccup practically tells us that Toothless is a reflection of himself."For the record, I neither agree nor disagree with his theory, but I do find it very interesting and thoughtful. Ultimately, there's evidence both for and against the theory, and we may never know the full truth unless DeBlois and Sanders decide to spill the beans.
Unless I'm mistaken, Spamtrap used the word "outsider" in the same context that one might use the word "outcast" or "loner". Everyone knows that Hiccup and Toothless aren't outsiders in the purely literal sense of the word.
But when I hear Stoick's exasperation that "Hiccup has always been... different", I smile, because that's Hiccup's key asset.
Toothless definitely was a loner (hence the adjective, "reclusive"), but if he was an outsider, than why did he divebomb Berk at the beginning of the movie? The common theory is that he was giving cover and help to the other dragons. In any case, Toothless was no outsider, not just because he was a dragon, but because he attacked Berk just like the other dragons did.
I took it that Toothless didn't kill him because Hiccup had just spared his life and then freed him.
Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.
I think you fail to see the bigger picture. The dogs you are referring too have been domesticated over time to accommodate man as a companion and originally done so with wolves. Now they are bought and sold as commodities just as slaves were/are. alluding to the fact that because an animal lacks the intelligence of man that they require a higher intelligent form to train them and become their friend also lacks intelligence. As we are capable to some extent but not everywhere to roam free is no different than any other species has done since the beginning of time. However what is the difference than a dog you keep at home in a cage/kennel while your away than a zoo which buys animals and keeps them on display for human amusement. Of course there not entirely the same but ultimately in the end they are. An animal is bought and told to do what is asked of it and so were slaves. Every species is meant to roam free with the ultimate goal of survival. Wolves still do it and it is the source of the domesticated dog. Saying that we feed them show them kindness and they will become our best friend is exactly as you have pointed out because they are not intelligent enough when domesticated to see life differently. No dogs are more happy then when off their leash and running free as they were always intended to do. Wolves don't want to live with man, the species that derived from them do not know any better and it's sad to sit back and just accept that just because this is the way it is, that it is right. Dig deeper.
Favourite movie: Lost In Translation
If anyone says this movie promotes slavery, that is preposterous.
-----------------
Incredibly Handsome Master Of All Villainy
I agree with you, but I think the consensus here is that the dragons are in fact intelligent, particularly Toothless.
Though I see where you're coming from, it's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that any form of domestication was occurring in the movie.
However, I dislike the use of the word "pet" in reference to the dragons. Luckily, it's not applied directly to Toothless by Hiccup, even though he makes a broad statement at the end, which can be considered a play on the "pests" reference he made at the beginning of the movie.
I hope the sequel will expand on the dragon-human relationships and hopefully they will be portrayed as equals.
They are consensually trading a service (flying) for goods (food, shelter).
Don't see anything wrong with that.
Dragons Hunt for their food and had to have done so prior to the humans feeding them fish, or they would be extinct. Every animal is capable of fending for itself as it is taught from mother/father to son/daughter. Those that do not figure it out simply die as individuals and if none of them figure it out will die as a species. This proof is in everything existing today. The same can be said with shelter however dragons are a creature of the outdoors and if they need shelter from the storm would seek out caves. What I am trying to say is, they do not have to trade any services for the things you list they gain in return, because they already know how to obtain them.
Favourite movie: Lost In Translation
The dragons have the ability to leave. They appreciate the companionship, just like the humans, or Toothless wouldn't have made the effort to save Hiccup. They want to be with each other. The other dragons seemed appreciative of the freedom from the big bad dragon. After the Vikings understood and treated them better the other dragons appreciated the companionship.
It seems you're grasping at straws and looking for reasons to dislike this movie. A good point was brought up when someone said you didn't mention the murdered fish and enslaved sheep. You just wanted a different ending.
Everyone in the movie now works together and the dragons weren't tied down they roamed freely.
Your view of slavery is creative but that's all it is.
"I'm not bad I'm just drawn that way." Jessica Rabbit
I just wanted to say that this is a fantastic takedown of the OP's ludicrous slave theory. Well done!
share
I liked the movie. Murder and slavery are different subjects, I brought up the slavery aspect not "murdering fish". I didn't say anything about veganism. So bringing it up is irrelevant to the topic. I did mention slavery and yes the sheep and dragon are in the same situation. I however only pointed out the dragon as it was the main focus of the film. Just because I didn't mention it doesn't make it a good point that didn't. Because the question was still valid and understood as is, without that mentioned. As for wanting a different ending, no sh*t! Thats where the question on this topic derived. Part of the defintion of slavery includes, "A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force." Now if the dragons are been used in any method to assist humans for their work, They are covered under that part of the definition. They were. My view of slavery comes from the defintion. Your view of slavery Is simplistic in that it must only be like the days of the underground railroad. You probably couldn't grasp the idea of wage slavery. Even though you are a wage slave yourself and i am too. Calling someone crazy when they go by the book haha. I hope you don't vote!
Favourite movie: Lost In Translation
This is perhaps the greatest reading of a political/social agenda into a kids movie. And I love it! Ha
I was thinking the same thing when I saw it. In the beginning I was all, "What's with the dragons oppressing the humans and forcing them to work, which in turn forced the humans to oppress the sheep, fish, etc, only so they could steal their labors." And then they added the giant dragon and that's a whole new level. The giant dragon is the bourgeois capitalist whose greed puts materialistic pressures on the lesser dragons, who oppress the humans, who oppress the sheep. Thankfully this led to the glorious revolution by the oppressed (well, all but the sheep) and the instillation of a utopian social system...or so I assumed, with the dragons contribute based on their talents of lighting fires and flying vikings around and vikings contributing by providing a steady and convenient supply of fish and livestock (no need to exert time and effort hunting). Now my eyes have been opened. The oppressive system is till in place, it's just that the top level was removed. The movie should have ended with a Hiccup exiting his home to find...no one. The screen cuts to black so they can explain that with the removal of the head dragon everyone realized the exploitive nature of their society. The vikings, even if they were "free" were at best wage slaves, with the blacksmith having to keep on turning out swords for the military industrial (er, it was more agrarian really) complex so he'd get gold so he could eat. Never could he really keep his wares and the fruits of his labors. And the same goes for the farmers, fishermen, all of them. I assume there was also some tax system too to maintain Hiccups dad and all. That's another fee exploiting the people since they had to work X number of hours to sell X number of swords, sheep, etc. to pay the tax. Hiccup's dad was making slaves of all of them! And it looks like there were many injured vikings too, what with a viking's life being dangerous dragon attacks or not, so maybe they set up an injured viking fund to provide food and shelter for those people. Well, Hiccup's dad would have to raise taxes to fund that now wouldn't he? So that adds more taxes, which means more time working to pay those taxes which then get redistributed to the injured vikings, so, though indirectly, the injured vikings have forced the able bodied vikings into a form of slavery. So, considering the only fair and equitable solution would be for everyone to go it alone in a state of nature even more nature-y than fictionalized appox. 1000 AD, they all took off so all could take full benefit from their labors without the encumbrances of their slave society, or as most people call it, society.
Then they leave enough time for the most socio-political adept 10 year old in the audience to ask, "But Mommy, without the tax extorted from the people, or as the movie calls them, slaves, what will happen to the injured vikings incapable of working?" before they cut back to the action and Hiccup standing in the doorway of the Viking Hall, filled with dead and dying elderly and injured vikings who couldn't fend for themselves in the new social structure before he is mauled by a pack of feral sheep.
Lesson children: Life is cruel and everyone is a slave...so you must either oppress others before they try to oppress you or go live in a cabin in the woods, off the gird, and make all your own food for only then will you be free.
And then I realized A. It's a kids movie. B. I'm not paranoid about such things and C. There are far more pressing agendas I could be taking up...like how racist and self absorbed is Lost in Translation?
Toothless can no longer fly on his own. How do you suggest he gets around if he just leaves Berk? Be bound to land for the rest of his life? Yes, he resisted the artificial tail at first, but once he realized that he needed Hiccup to fly again he was more than willing to let Hiccup ride him.
The dragon, instead of the screech of warning he delivers, could have snatched Hiccup's head clean off. But he chose to spare him, just as Hiccup chose not to cut out Toothless' heart.
Toothless clawed his way out of the cove when he heard Hiccup screaming: if he wanted to be free, couldn't he have done the same and, instead of charging to Hiccup's rescue, ran in the other direction?
When battling the green death, Toothless could have soared away instead of plunging into the inferno, risking his own life to save Hiccup, could he not have?
When Stoick saves Toothless from drowning, toothless could have left Stoick to his own devices, but he grabs hold of him and brings Stoick to the surface with him. He chose to help that man, even though he captured Toothless initially.
When Hiccup and the other teens attempt to ride the dragons to the nest, the dragons could just have easily ripped them apart if they so desired, and even once they got to the nest they could have bolted when they saw the green death, but they chose to help the vikings to bring down their master.
The dragons are intelligent, wild beings, as you mention. They are able to analyze situations and behave accordingly and on instinct.
In any case, perhaps the dragons are repaying the vikings for freeing them from the Green Death by helping to rebuild their village and will skip town once the repairs are completed. We will not know till the sequel.
Until then, consider all sides of your argument before stumbling in making assumptions and declaring intentions that are not yours to declare.
Toothless can no longer fly on his own. How do you suggest he gets around if he just leaves Berk? Be bound to land for the rest of his life? Yes, he resisted the artificial tail at first, but once he realized that he needed Hiccup to fly again he was more than willing to let Hiccup ride him.There's an interesting side-story about Toothless getting a new tail that allows him independence. A while ago here in the forum, we had guesses about Toothless' reaction if that happened. In "Dragons: Gift of the Night Fury", we get to see the result. Toothless has a complex personality.
You make an interesting point. Since I personally have not seen enough of his character, I cannot say whether or not toothless would stay by hiccup's side after gaining independence. My argument was more pointing out that Toothless is intelligent enough to know that he cannot fly without Hiccup, and comes to terms with the tail and is not, in fact "enslaved" as the OP points out.
shareYou make an interesting point. Since I personally have not seen enough of his character, I cannot say whether or not toothless would stay by hiccup's side after gaining independence. My argument was more pointing out that Toothless is intelligent enough to know that he cannot fly without Hiccup, and comes to terms with the tail and is not, in fact "enslaved" as the OP points out.
This ending reminds me of the Lion with the Thorn. The dragons were helped by the hymns and they became friends. For an exception of Toothless, the dragons can leave if they want to. They are not slaves or wage slaves. They can survive on their own volition without the humans. They are not dependant on them like we are on our paychecks. There is a cooperative relationship between the two species. There is no version, of any kind, of slavery at the end. It is a touching ending. If you don't like it, don't watch it. This point of view isn't even philosophical, It's absurd. The ending flowed perfectly with the rest of the movie. An understanding was was made, and hate melted away. This is an excellent story for children to accept and learn.
I could continue, but honestly idk if there is a point. You are basically acting like you're listening, but you're ears are closed. All you have are negative and rude comments about this. If you can pick apart a wonderful children's movie for a fictious "problem" then maybe you missed the point of it. Maybe you miss the point of all harmless children's movies. Next we'll hear Snow White glorified Nazi behavior.
Maybe the real reason is a clown terrorized you as a child, and you have disliked anything child oriented since, or you're upset at the world at the innocent dragon movie was your way of venting.
"I'm not bad I'm just drawn that way." Jessica Rabbit
Toothless has a complex personality.
1. As has already been pointed out by a number of posters, the dragons CAN FLY AWAY WHENEVER IT SUITS THEM! They're NOT in chains, and they're NOT fenced in, which would be fruitless, because they CAN fly.
2) The dragons WERE in slavery--to the Big Dragon/Green Death/Whatever it's called, and the humans freed them (or were certainly necessary to their freedom).
3) While the dragons may not NEED human beings (and the humans/Vikings didn't NEED the dragons, either), it's entirely possible, in fact I'd say probable, that they'll thrive far better in a symbiotic relationship with humans because humans have two important things they don't have--hands and opposable thumbs. Fishing just got a lot easier for the dragons, and probably the dragons will suffer far less infant mortality with humans guarding their nests and making sure even the runts of the litters are well fed. Additionally, as already demonstrated by Hiccup's creation of a prosthetic tail fin for Toothless, if the dragons need medical help--admittedly it'll have to be basic stuff, like bone-setting and bad tooth-pulling, or application of herbal poultices--they can have it, which they could never have had before.
4) And as other posters have pointed out as well, it looks to me that, freed from the domination of the Big Dragon and its constant death threat, the dragons genuinely LIKE the company of another sentient species.
"Slavery"--Bah!