Having Toothless give up his independence, returning him into depending on his Master to be able to get around - well that just felt right creepy. They could have easily gone flying together without him sacrificing his freedom.
Probably a better analogy out there but it felt like a slave being unchained and set free, only to return and reattach the chain round his neck.
Left a right bitter taste.
Argh, it's a shame it left such a bitter taste for you. I understand what you're saying though.
Spoiler tags for safety...
The main reason I think he got the old tail back is to keep continuity between the movie and the sequel, which is set for 2014. It's generally unwise to make major character changes between feature films.
I still think it was a touching gesture if you don't over-analyze it. I think Toothless just wanted to be as close to Hiccup as possible. Maybe it's his own way of putting a chain on Hiccup and keeping him close.
Maybe we'll see the new tail again someday. In theory, they could alternate between the old and new if Toothless felt the need.
I guess if, in the new movie or at a later time, we do see the reappearance of the independencemakingtailattachment thingie, I won't feel so icky about this short film - rather than this etching in stone the "master/slave" ness of their relationship, this short would be just a step along the road of their evolving relationship - like a baby who's just learnt to walk but immediately runs back to mom for a big hug, or something like that. :D
The both of them just need to see that they can still go flying together without the need for VikingBoy to have sole control over Toothless's ability to fly.
Ahhhhhh, everything is right in the world once more. :)
I found an interview where the producer says they are going for a Fall 2013 release of course the interview was a year ago, but still. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP24ccpPlBI&feature=plcp
shareSay what? Its a children's movie.Just stop.Its obvious that the dragon cannot speak,the dragon did not want to leave the boy.The boy gave him the chance to fly alone and HE CHOSE FREELY to stay/fly with the boy.Slavery? Really? Get some help buddy.Quit over analyzing children's movies.
shareHe didn't JUST choose to stay, had he JUST chosen to stay I'd have no problem with that whatsoever - them being friends and all that. They could then have all manner of wonderous adventures together.
What he chose to do was destroy the one thing that allowed him to fly independently, that's what creeped me out. He returned himself to only being able to fly when Hiccup is controlling him.
I think the reasoning behind Toothless decision is twofold:
Trust: I think toothless feels that placing complete trust in his rider and surrendering control over to him strengthens the bond to the highest possible level. He values the bond he has with the boy much more than his independence.
Nobility: I think Toothless looks at Hiccup's lost leg and feels that the decision to share a similar handicap is a noble one to make - especially when he knows that when they work together, it nullifies the disadvantages of their handicap. Some have speculated (me included) that Toothless was responsible for the loss of Hiccup's leg. Many believe that he had to chomp on his leg to save him from free fall. So if you look at it that way, Toothless could feel undeserving of such a gift. Regardless, it's fitting to believe, IMO, that Toothless' action is like saying, "If you can live without leg, I can live without a fin. If you're grounded and limping about, I'll stay grounded and and walk at your side to support you." I only wish the director would have made Toothless' eyes glance down towards Hiccup's leg in that scene. That really would have been touching.
EDIT: Actually, he surprisingly does for about a half second:
http://bit.ly/uhdz4E
The question is, was it intentional? If they wanted to make it obvious, they would have probably reversed the camera angle to show a close-up of Hiccup's leg from Toothless' POV.
Toothless had the foot munchies.... interesting (rubs chin in a contemplative manner).
Methinks I'll get off my "Toothless returned himself to slavery, WTF" high horse and sit in the "I'd like to know the reasoning behind his action and hope the new movie will provide some answers" easy-chair.
btw: Since Toothless didn't return with any babies do we conclude he is male, or (if dragons are omisexual) just conclude he wasn't in birthing mode. OR maybe he flew away, had them, returned, then broke his tail so he wouldn't be tempted to return and reveal their existence - might be stretching the whatifmaybes there a tad. :)
Methinks I'll get off my "Toothless returned himself to slavery, WTF" high horse and sit in the "I'd like to know the reasoning behind his action and hope the new movie will provide some answers" easy-chair.
Since Toothless didn't return with any babies do we conclude he is male, or (if dragons are omisexual) just conclude he wasn't in birthing mode.
OR maybe he flew away, had them, returned, then broke his tail so he wouldn't be tempted to return and reveal their existence
^you think Toothless crippled himself to strengthen the bond between him and Hiccup. And/or he felt Hiccup didn't want to fly with him anymore, now that Hiccup wouldn't be the one in command of Toothless's flying action.
From watching the short movie I felt Hiccup felt that Toothless wanted to leave but was staying out of some kinda obligation.
If any of these are true, it sounds like the two should have sat down, with a nice cup of tea, and had a little chat about what they were feeling and what they thought the other was feeling, before taking the rash decision to break the tail attachment.
From watching the short movie I felt Hiccup felt that Toothless wanted to leave but was staying out of some kinda obligation.
If any of these are true, it sounds like the two should have sat down, with a nice cup of tea, and had a little chat about what they were feeling and what they thought the other was feeling, before taking the rash decision to break the tail attachment.
"Also, Toothless clearly wanted to leave the island once all the other dragons left. But why he wanted to leave remains a complete mystery."
He wanted to leave so he could find Hiccup's helmet......
Ostensibly, yes, that's the reason he left. But there was a terrific discussion on this board that has since been deleted about how it was more than the helmet. Here's a comment of mine that I left from November 29, 2011 where I summarized it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2065968/board/thread/191456163?d=191712646&p=1#191712646
Really nice way to sum things up - though one point here about Meatlug, who was actually reffered as a male quite a bit, but in this short movie he is revealed to have been laying eggs, surprising everyone.
Fishlegs is very confused at this until someone mentions that Meatlug is a female, then he even mentions that ''that explains a few things''.
I was actually more surprised at the series where Meatlug was a girl from the start - I was like wtf until I watched this short, and finally got my explanation.
I wonder if Toothless might be not yet sexually mature. If he's not the only/last of his kind, at least in the area, he might be too young to mate yet.
Or there's a girl Night Fury somewhere around there that has baby toothlesses :P
My thought is that maybe in the same way Hiccup thought it was unfair for Toothless to not be able to go his own way, Toothless thought it was unfair that he should get to be free while Hiccup will basically always be handicapped. As they showed with Hiccup slipping on the ice when Toothless wasn't there, Hiccup needs Toothless as much as Toothless had needed him, and this was basically Toothless's own way of saying "I'll always be here for you, man."
share[deleted]
Oh good grief... anywhoo I encourage you to discuss this with someone in person and see what reaction you may get.
shareI guess if I try, I can see where you're coming from, in a way. But that wasn't my interpretation at all.
Possible spoilers ahead...beware...
Theirs isn't a master/slave relationship. They're friends. They trust each other, and, until the new tail, they NEEDED each other. Toothless was Hiccup's foot, and Hiccup was Toothless' tail, in a sense. They made each other whole. Then, with the new tail, Toothless' problems were basically solved, but Hiccup was then the dependent one in the relationship; without Toothless, he's just a kid hobbling around with a prosthetic. Toothless, I guess, realized that his friend needed him, and perhaps realized that flying was more fun with Hiccup anyway. He tried to tell Hiccup this by pulling the old saddle and tail out, but Hiccup didn't seem to get it. So, Toothless broke the new tail, not as a sign of resignation to slavery, but as a gesture to his friend, that he wanted to be there for Hiccup, and that he didn't want to fly at all without Hiccup.
That's how I see it, anyway. I thought it was quite sweet when I watched it.
I'm a bit confused as why people were questioning why Toothless took he just went to get Hiccup's missing helmet ..
no, I think he broke his new tail (rather fin) to show he was still loyal to hiccup.
I think the new fin is a worse tailfin in flight because it only copies the other tail and not twist independent of the other tailfin like it did with hiccup controlling it. If you study a bit of flight mechanics (or watch the first movie) the tail fin needs to close open and move up and down independent of the opposing tail fin to work best.
A simple analogy would be a human tying their legs together. Sure, locomotion and movement can happen if he or she hops, but certainly would not be faster if the person has 2 legs independent of each other and running.
im sick of the whole sensitivity of slavery
mostly the world has moved on from this but some people wont let it go
they cling onto it in the same way religous extremists cling onto religious phrases and ideals
its a childrens movie for gods sake, giving example after example of friendship in its truest form crossing the species boundaries and providing people of all ages the importance of the meaning of loyalty and friendship and sacrifice
some people just see slavery in every corner of our lives they want and need to see it, they live life examining every incident or slight, weighing it against past injustices, they cant even watch a childrens movie without being able to seperate the bonds of slavery with commitment, trust, guilt and friendship
i would say the only slavery i see here is that within peoples minds, self imprisonment
is the honey bee a slave
is the sheepdog a slave
is the blind mans dog a slave
is scooby doo a slave ?
get a life and while your at it heres a chisel, youll need it to get that chip off your shoulder
anyway im off to watch tom and jerry as i feel the need to laugh at another misfortunes
I despise everyone who projects their own victimhood complexes onto HTTYD. Believe it or not, there was once a thread on this board that said one scene in HTTYD was a metaphor for rape. The thread got yanked thanks to the grotesque language. It remains the most jarring thing I've ever seen on IMDB.
Anyway, FANTASTIC post about slavery! It's appalling to me that in today's society, people still obsess over an institution that was abolished in the Western world before anyone's great great grandparents were even born.