#*myanalysis

[inhonoredglory]

"Not only is the friendship beneficial for both of them (they were each alone and they fulfilled themselves in each other), it was beneficial for the entire world. If anything, they owe it to the archipelago and the future of dragons and humans to stay together." I loved this! did you mean it?! could you elaborate on it pleeease? thanks!

So this is in response to this post and the reply by @kingofthewilderwest, referencing why Hiccup and Toothless had to separate and the implied selfishness on the part of Hiccup for hanging onto the friendship. Specifically, this is in response to a quote from Haddock’s reply:

“Can we actually call Hiccup’s relationship to Toothless through the years a selfish holding on? When so much of Hicctooth’s relationship has been sacrifice for one another, through and through and through?”

Hiccup and Toothless’ friendship is such a deep one precisely because it made both of them stronger and braver and better than they were before: Hiccup found his place in the world, found his confidence, found love and respect among his friends and family, found his identity and his mission in the world. Hiccup became brave and selfless enough to lose the love of his father in order to prove that dragons were not killers. He became a warrior in order to save his dragon and his tribe and father.

Toothless, through Hiccup’s confidence in him, found courage to fight the tyrant that had kept his fellow dragons under control. He saved his dragonkind, not only by doing this, but by proving that dragons are the loyal, wonderful creatures Hiccup believed them to be. Toothless became selfless enough not to look out for his own self-preservation, but to put himself in harm’s way in order to save Hiccup from the Kill Ring. His saving Hiccup from the fire proved to Stoick that dragons can love, and indeed, love deeply.

And it was these, the acts of both Hiccup and Toothless, that brought peace to the 300-year-war that raged on Berk against dragons. Thousands of lives, dragon and human, were saved by the simple but powerful expression of love between two individuals. (And when you think about it, that’s a really remarkable achievement.)

In the second film, we get the same theme: Hiccup and Toothless have created a world where humans and dragons live together. Drago believes that dragons can simply be controlled by wielding power over them and by taking command of the dragon alpha. It’s a pragmatic equation built on the belief that dragons have no love and no loyalty in them. He’s out to make a dragon army and to decimate tribes across the archipelago, using dragons as his henchmen. But what stops him? What stops this tyrant from destroying the world? The fact that Toothless is independent of the Alpha, he has free will, he has loyalty, he has choice. He is not beholden to the will of the Alpha, or by extension, Drago. Dragons cannot be used, they cannot be forced to do that which they hate.

Granted, it was hard for Toothless to evade the control of the Alpha, which shows how strong the biological drive is to listen to the Alpha’s command. But because Toothless’ love for Hiccup is so strong, it can and will overpower his other, deep biological instincts. In the final battle of the second film, it is again Toothless’ absolute trust in Hiccup that allows him to evade the Alpha’s hive mind, and his absolute ferocity in having Hiccup hurt again under his watch that empowered him to take on the Alpha and upturn the natural order of the species. It was Toothless’ command of the dragons that allowed them all the strength to fight the Bewilderbeast and protect not only their own free will but the lives of the Berkians (and by extension, all the peoples under threat by Drago).

In both films and in the series, we see again and again how association and comradeship with dragons makes for a better world: from the Riders (the next generation who will live loving dragons for who they are and what they can do), to Eret (changing his worldview entirely), to Mala (who gives dragons the respect they deserve as incredible, powerful beings), to the Wingmaidens (who have a symbiotic relationship to their dragons and their wellbeing). Hiccup’s message of how humans and dragons should work together has never created a worse world.

Even in the third film, it is Hiccup and Toothless’ absolute and undying love for one another that takes down the enemy that symbolizes the world: Hiccup, because of his love for Toothless, sacrificed himself to kill Grimmel, to save Toothless. Hiccup and the other riders continually saved dragons from trapper cages because they worked together with their dragons to fight them. The riders take down the enemy armada by joining forces with dragons. It is Hiccup’s association with Toothless and with dragons that allows Hiccup to innovate creatively to create a world that tries to accommodate both species––an unheard of notion among Vikings that is relevant to the very core of what tolerance means.

Hiccup and Toothless have only ever made each other’s lives better. They have both only ever made the world a better place. They have symbolized peace and equality to people everywhere, they have fought as one to defeat foes who believed only subordination or murder was possible between the species.

Hiccup, as a mediator between the human and dragon species, is in the perfect position to negotiate between the species, to understand what humans need to understand about dragons, and what dragons need to ally with humans. Hiccup is capable of talking to leaders and chiefs on the archipelago, showing them the power and splendor of the dragons by his side. Toothless is the leader capable of defending and leading dragonkind away from control by a dominating foe or a challenger Alpha. Because their enemies underestimate the bond between two individuals and the two species, Hiccup and Toothless have the advantage of them and have continually taken victory from them through the sheer expression of their love and belief in one another.

What makes Hiccup and Toothless special in the history of the world is how they are the individual representation of a larger goal. It’s a psychological fact that tolerance for foreign groups and immigrants increases by the sheer presence of those groups. Keeping dragons and humans together in some form keeps that existence alive in the world, allowing Hiccup and Toothless to develop their joint leadership into something that guides the entire world into peace and understanding. By putting a halt to that association, by giving in to the divide of the species believed by the world, Hiccup is essentially formalizing the idea that his efforts at peace are not enough, that his and Toothless’ association cannot help create a better world anymore. And while this is an admirable, humble realization (and one I would have loved to see better developed in THW), it really doesn’t come across that way in the HTTYD narrative. In the narrative, we see how much their friendship helps defeat vast armies and tyrannical foes, and how their bond has created a utopia where both species live (albeit somewhat uncomfortably, but really.. not irrecoverably).

So, I guess what I’m saying is that the love between Hiccup and Toothless has only ever been selfless and giving. And more than that, it has continually shown to be the catalyst of major societal and political change in their world. By their both becoming leaders to their respective groups, they are in the perfect position to further enact real change in the larger world, by preaching tolerance by example and demonstrating that a mutually-beneficial dragon-human alliance is more powerful than humans or dragons alone.

I’d like to note that in the books, Hiccup and the dragons remained together and at peace for most of Hiccup’s life because the dragons trusted Hiccup to be a friend of dragons, and to lead the archipelago in that friendly alliance. The separation happened towards the end of Hiccup’s life because, while dragons could trust Hiccup to lead the humans in friendship with dragons, they could not always trust who came after Hiccup. That is the difference in thematic I think is missing from the narrative in THW: that, yes, there are humans who will always be evil towards dragons, but it is Hiccup and his tribe who can be forces for change in their world right now, before they pass on to the next generation.

[inhonoredglory]

I honestly can’t really get on board w the ending of httyd 3 for the very fact that it felt like what ppl say happens when you get married, that you leave everyone even your best friend and go to your own little bubble w your partner and kids (maybe occasionally seeing them if your lucky) and being that I haven’t been w anyone ever &that I don’t see my future like that it kinda made me sad that the ending kinda just further reinforced the idea that that’s what’s natural idk

OK. This. This is what has been bothering me pretty hardcore since the film ended and I got over the shine of its shocking newness. I don’t want to really promote negativity in the fandom, but it should be addressed and you bring up what I fear the most in most mainstream narratives, and what I thought we were safe from in the HTTYD franchise.

Because HTTYD as a whole is so strongly and so poignantly about the friendship and fierce love of Hiccup and Toothless: theirs is a Love Story, through and through, and let’s be real: HTTYD3 confirmed that by having Hiccup tell Toothless, “I love you” (if anyone out there was confused before) and by paralleling Stoick’s “love is loss” flashback quote with (not Hiccup and Astrid), but Hiccup and Toothless.

So the narrative definitely elevates the friendship of Hiccup and Toothless. I appreciate that. I appreciate that the film knows this is about “the friendship of a lifetime.” Hiccup is selfless to the point of death for Toothless’ happiness. (Toothless has some development issues and a less-than-stellar portrayal of his own separation anxiety, but that’s another issue written about here in this analysis by @e–wills and @kingofthewilderwest)

The theme of the film is that dragons and humans can’t live with each other because humans are too evil. Toothless must protect his dragonkind. Toothless must lead them to safety. I’m not going to go into the details of how those themes were developed in the film (or if they needed more emphasis). That might be another post once I see the film again.

What I am bothered by is how easily the narrative feeds into what you feared: that friendships must inevitably give way to romantic partnerships. Hiccup says he was paying attention to what he wanted, rather than what Toothless needed. He asks Toothless, “am I enough?” And the narrative is telling us, no. We have so many supporting character relationships turned into romances or hints of romances that weren’t that way before––from Snotlout hitting on Valka, that bit of Valka and Eret, Tuffnut and Hiccup, Gobber and Eret. (Again, I’m not saying romance is bad, but romance––of any stripe––was never the hallmark of HTTYD.) And of course… we get Ruffnut trying to decide which man she wants to fall in love with.. because apparently, even her and Tuffnut can’t be complete with just each other (I’m not the biggest RTTE fan, but I honestly adored that ep where Ruff committed herself to Tuff instead of running off with Throk.)

A hugely disproportionate amount of the jokes in the film were ultimately sexual in nature. And when Toothless is swept off his wings by the Light Fury (literally when he fell into the Hidden World w/ her), the cinematic structure of that scene was that traditional fade to black (read: they had sex) we see in romantic movies since the beginning of movies. Toothless is slobbery and horny. Hiccup and Astrid are on fire (literally, and I could probably get very Freudian about that scene too). The overtness of the sexual undertone in this film felt more powerful to me than the direness of the threat (again, with limited runtime they chose to emphasize developing Toothless and LF’s arc than the villains’).

It bothers me because even though we get the world-scope facts about Toothless having to return to his kind and protect his dragons, we get the emotional and narrative scaffolding of a very, VERY tired and traditional trope. Casual fans are gonna see this movie and knee-jerk right back into the idea that friendships are the things you have as a kid and teen growing up. Those have to ultimately give way to “the real world” where you settle with a romantic partner and have a family.

Are families bad? No. Is romance bad? No. But Hiccup and Toothless represented so much more than that; they represented True Love, which is dedicated, committed, and lifelong. I adored GotNF because it placed the hallmarks and symbology of marriage (willing bondage to another person) in the context of Hiccup and Toothless, the most non-sexual of relationships (bless the fact that Toothless is a dragon because it made friendship the only canon interpretation of their bond). HTTYD3 tries to explain GotNF by saying Toothless had no one to go to when he flew off. But now he does.

I still want to see the film again to really get my thoughts together on this, but at the moment I’m grumbling. I soapbox friendships-as-legit-love a lot and so I was triggered somewhat by the shift. Like you, I’ve never been in a romantic relationship either and I really wonder if the biological drive to get hooked is that powerful in people. Maybe it is…

I lowkey want to write a THW Remix fic putting back in all the themes we know and love into the movie, but with the plot intact, cuz the plot of this film was heartbreakingly beautiful and completely relevant to the biggest Hiccup and Toothless question in their growth: when does a love become selfish?

Anyway, I rambled long enough. Please let’s dialogue about this, fandom. I want to work my feelings out on it and hopefully be proved wrong.

I do recommend reading this post by a friend of mine who believes the friendship was not overpowered by the romance.

[inhonoredglory]

One other observation about THW:

The shock of the opening not starting w/ “This is Berk” narration but with the raid segment. It’s ironic and disturbing and I think it’s symbolic on the state the world and why the ending is the way it is: Because Berk is being undercut by the violence and danger of the outside world. Berk is not the way the world is. The world is harsh and dangerous and horrible, and no amount of individual paradises can change that. Which is why the narration was pushed. Because we as viewers aren’t viewing the world first as “the paradise of Berk” anymore; we’re viewing it as a secondary footnote to the reality of the world as a place hostile always to dragons.

[inhonoredglory]

I think Snotlout should have died in HTTYD3. He's been there from the beginning, losing him would be a reminder what's at stake, if they keep fighting. As a character, in the movies at least, he was never entirely redeemed from that competetive bully he was in the first movie, and I think having him die saving Hiccup, would sement him both as a hero and as a painful loss, to drive home how dangerous this war is, and that having dragons stay with the vikings will only cause more pain for all.

Hey anon! This is an interesting proposition. Lots of folks in the fandom were speculating heavily that he might be killed in the third film (especially since he sacrifices himself for Hiccup in the book series). I get what you’re saying about how it might drive home the magnitude of the war and of Grimmel’s threat. Some of us have been postulating that the film needed more of that development in order for the evacuation to feel more relevant, and for the drastic choice of leaving their dragons to feel more necessary in the context of the world.

I want to answer your question in two phases: one about Snotlout’s development, and one about the implications to the film his death might have provided.

The Redemption of Snotlout in the HTTYD Films

First off, I do believe Snotlout did redeem himself, even just within the context of the films.

Of course, outside the films, we get lots of development and growth for him: him growing into a mutual respect and understanding of Hiccup regarding their father’s expectations (Not Lout), his staying in danger to save Hiccup rather than leave him (Sandbusted). He might complain and object to many of Hiccup’s ideas, but in the end of the series, he’s shown to be a loyal warrior who shares a mutual support and respect for Hiccup.

Now, of course the thrust of this question is what’s Snotlout’s arc in the film trilogy. Again, I believe Snotlout does demonstrate significant change from his identity as a bully in the first film: In the beginning of the first film, he’s pretty vicious to Hiccup, getting up in his personal space and making a huge deal out of his jabs at him. He’s doing it because he wants to impress Astrid, he’s doing it to make up for the fact that he (a model Viking) isn’t going to be one leading the village when they grow up, he’s doing it to make up for his own insecurities (with his parental expectations). He’s actually a pretty sensitive, emotional boy––and he makes a marked change in the film from being a bully to being one of Hiccup’s most enthusiastic fans. Once Hiccup begins to demonstrate his skill with dragons in the training ring, we see Snotlout actively trying to buddy up with Hiccup, not undermine him with insults and jeers:

In the end, we see Hiccup basically forgive Snotlout for everything he’s done to him by choosing him to be the first of the teens to befriend a dragon. I don’t think it’s lost on Hiccup that Snotlout, the Viking who wanted the most to be the tough and “Vikinglike” ideal of his culture (and who was most insecure about it, unlike Astrid, who had confidence in her abilities)… I don’t think all this was lost on Hiccup when he chose him to be the one to train the dragon (a Monstrous Nightmare) each one of the gang saw as the most ferocious, most unattainable, most dangerous of dragons (the prize dragon they all wanted a chance to kill at the end of training). By giving Snotlout the honor of befriending this dragon, Hiccup is allowing Snotlout to win––for once, in a reputable, sincere way he can be proud of.

True, Snotlout was a bully. He wanted approval and attention. He attacked Hiccup in order to raise himself up. And when Hiccup became skilled and popular, Snotlout allied with him in order to get close to where the wave of popularity flowed. But when Hiccup let him train Hookfang, it was more than just getting close to the popular kid: Snotlout had to put his trust in Hiccup for a moment, he had to actively show vulnerability to Hiccup. The scene is the pinnacling contrast between where Hiccup and Snotlout have come in the course of the film––now Hiccup is the powerful individual, and Snoltout, the one afraid and undone. But again, this is Hiccup not lording it over Snotlout, like Snotlout has done in all his insults. Hiccup is instead offering a truce, an equality with Snotlout:

So when Hiccup is thought dead, Snotlout reacts with horror and shock and ultimately, when they find him to be alive, tears of joy. This support of Hiccup actually continues in the second film, and while unfortunately we don’t get a lot of action between him and Hiccup, we do get a few significant moments: Snotlout sheds the same earnest tears for Hiccup and Stoick as he did at the end of the first film.

And when Hiccup is made chief at the end, where Snotlout is as happy and thrilled to see Hiccup succeed––this is a direct parallel to his reaction when Hiccup fought the Red Death.

So IMO the films are telling the same story as the series, that Snotlout the bully is actually sensitive and redeemable through the challenging but ultimately successful relationship with Hiccup, his adversary.

Which leads me into the third film.

Sacrificing Snotlout to Weigh the Severity of the Threat in THW

To be frank, I am slightly confused by in terms of their choice of plot for Snotlout. I adore the book allusions of his designs for the chieftainship, but I’m not sure if this particular need of Snotlout was resolved very much for him in the end. I believe his insistence on closeness with Valka is a reaction partly to Stoick dying a year before, seeing how Stoick was a much more reasonable and sympathetic father figure to Snotlout than Spitelout ever was. He didn’t demonstrate any disappointment in Hiccup becoming chief (HTTYD2) and over the series, he’s been ultimately supportive of Hiccup’s future position of leadership. The bitterness in the third film might be a reaction to the vacuum in his life upon the loss of both a place of tribal importance and Ruffnut’s affections (total speculation territory for that one), and especially the threat of masculine dominance with the introduction of Eret to the tribe. Knocking on Hiccup has been his go-to in the first film, and that weakness crops up again in the third film. In the end, he gains Valka’s approval and Tuffnut’s friendship––perhaps a meta on their shared loneliness in their own individual perceived failings in the “Vikingness”/masculinity department (re: Tuffnut’s beard anxiety).

Snotlout, for all the growth he’s done over the series and even over the films, isn’t really given much of a “place” in the tribe in the third film. Valka’s approval of him in the end (him having “the brains” between him and Eret) feels more like a consolation rather than a genuine praise, despite Snotlout taking it at face value. Honestly, I feel that Snotlout is still looking for something, and we’re not sure where exactly he’ll end up in the post-HTTYD3 world.

Which is why a scenario where Snotlout instead dies at the end of Act 2 is actually really attractive. It wouldn’t really be to redeem him from his first movie self, but to give his arc somewhere important to go with his conflict with Hiccup and his belief in Hiccup’s leadership––to continue his arc and bring it full circle in a positive, rather than negative, way. If he had sacrificed himself for the good of tribe, it would more be a continuation of what we’ve seen of him in the series (both films and TV shows), rather than a redemption. It would allow him to pour his long-seen bravado and ambition for greatness into something definite and concrete, a moment where all that growth leads up to. And yes, I’d agree with you here: it would cement him as a hero.

And it would definitely drive the threat home. It was Stoick’s death, after all, that made the Bewilderbeast and Drago’s control of him so powerful and shocking. I’ve said before that the threat in THW needed to be made real on both the personal and global scale. Snotlout sacrificing himself could provide the personal stakes that make the threat feel real, and it would have been a good allusion to the sacrifice of the dragons that must occur later in the film.

However, I can see why DeBlois and Co. didn’t choose this path. Stoick already died in the second film and it’s hard to give that kind of significance to another character’s death, especially when he’s a supporting character and there’s already so much emotional time and energy used on the goodbye between the dragons and humans. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s certainly difficult to pull off.

Additionally, we already have a major sacrifice moment in the third film, with Hiccup letting go of the Light Fury to save Toothless. That moment is important for the emotional heart of the film and having one similar with Snotlout would have been too close a beat in so short a time. Again, it’s not impossible to resolve but it would make it challenging.

You can probably still pull the same themes for Snotlout we’ve been discussing here with him nearly dying in the film. A greater impact of the threat on the lives of any of the gang would make for higher stakes and a feeling that the impact of Grimmel is upon individuals other than Hiccup (so thus we can surmise, the world).

You’ve made me super curious to contemplate a version of THW where this happens and how it might make the overall narrative feel. (*adds to things I may add in my fix-it fic*)

Thanks for the question! I spent hours on it I hope it’s relevant LOL.

[inhonoredglory]

I love LOVE how selfless Hiccup is, but do you think he would ever be truly happy without Toothless? As the years went by after HTTYD 2, I struggled when thinking about canon because it just struck me as painful- I could only remember Hiccup's pain as he mourned his father. I'm afraid THW will make me feel like that in the long run. I just cannot imagine Hiccup without Toothless, happy. Not entirely. Idk. I'm confused. Maybe your reading on THW might shed some light into it for me?

Thanks for asking this… it really is an important question and one that is relevant on the entire theme of the film series and in life in general: At some point most, if not all, of us will face a loss that makes us doubt there is ever the possibility of happiness afterwards. It might be the death of a loved one, the divorce of parents, the loss of a best friend… In both films, we see Hiccup face this kind of loss and it isn’t easy. Hiccup, even in THW, still feels the sting of Stoick’s death––is he worthy of the chieftainship? Is he strong enough to be his father? In the comics, his own people question his ability to lead. But Hiccup’s response to this is to “try” (as he said in Stoick’s funeral)––to always aspire for the goal, to never give up, to always aspire (as Astrid told him in her pep talk on the cliff) to be the person he always was––bold, reckless, moral, true––instead of focusing on the failures he might be.

With the loss of Toothless, it hurts too, just like the loss of his Dad. It hurts hard. Toothless is more a part of his soul than anything in the entire world. He will hurt a long time and the pain will sting. But you know what gives me hope? This moment,

He smiles at the end there. Because for all the reasons that Hiccup lost Toothless, he lost him willingly. He chose a life without Toothless for Toothless’ own sake. And you know what makes Hiccup truly happy? The happiness and completeness of Toothless.

In a sense, all of us are selfish. We do only what makes us happy. Sometimes we value the happiness of other people more than what would make us happy, and we call that selflessness (and I still do, by convention). But really… we make someone else happy over our own happiness because that person’s happiness makes US happy too.

Sometimes it’s not an easy happiness, but it’s a satisfaction that overpowers our need to serve our own immediate emotions. In HTTYD1, Hiccup gave up his father’s approval for Toothless, because doing the hard, right thing gave him more than sacrificing his friend for his father’s love.

And that’s exactly what Hiccup does in THW. It’s important to see Toothless looking fulfilled and right in the Hidden World with his dragonkind because that’s where he belongs, leading his people and creating a family of Night Furies that will carry on the legacy of Toothless’ love. Hiccup knows Toothless needs to be there. He would love to have Toothless by his side forever, but if Hiccup had done that, he would feel terribly guilty for keeping Toothless from the life the dragon should be leading. And by letting Toothless go, Hiccup feels satisfied that he has done the best thing for someone else. Selflessness has its own rewards, and that is the joy of bringing someone else’s dream to fruition. Hiccup will find comfort in this, because above all, Hiccup loves Toothless––with a love that knows no bounds and a love that hopes and believes.

He will be happy. It might not be today. It might not be next year. But he will be happy, because he knows in his heart he has made Toothless’ life better. And he knows in his heart he has done the right thing. And he knows in his heart that dragons are safe because of him and Toothless’ choices. He knows he has made a difference in the life of his friend; he has made a difference in the story of the world. Hiccup will be happy because he has experienced love, and that is all any of us could wish for. There is always a reason to go on, to be hopeful, to try. Like Hiccup always does.

I hope that helps, my friend. If anyone out there knows the power of not giving up, it is Hiccup.

[inhonoredglory]

I thought that Hiccup overreacted to Grimmel, but as I think back on it, evacuate Berk makes sense. Hiccup doesn't want to lose anyone he cares about (did it feel like the indoor scenes with the Deathgrippers put a lot of focus on Astrid barely escaping them? I kept expecting her to be impaled!) and Grimmel just demonstrated his ability to infiltrate the village with some very dangerous dragons. And those aren't a blunt instrument like Drago's horde was, they're a commando of shock troops!

Very true. Hiccup is a pacifist in many ways. We have to look at his reign as chief to get a better context on his decisions in HTTYD3: After his father’s death, he saw his entire village decimated by Drago. This was violent, horrible, and frankly, shocking. Many people died. He spent a year after that rebuilding the village. We all know Vikings don’t mind rebuilding their villages; they’re used to destruction and death and picking themselves up afterwards. But this time it’s different, and more personal: it’s not dragons doing the killing, it’s people. Drago controlling a dragon into this violence. Grimmel poisoning dragons into this violence. It’s not nature doing the killing, it’s not necessity doing the violence (“if they don’t bring enough food back, they’d be eaten themselves”). It’s cold-blooded, greedy, arrogant humanity who’s doing this war.

(Drago’s Bewilderbeast literally crawled over Berk in a surprise attack that must have killed a lot of people.)

And I believe that hurts Hiccup deeply. He’s a man who loves dragons to the depth of his soul. He’s a man who can’t let his people die by the hand of violent men. He spend a year picking up the pieces of Drago’s attack. He’s not going to do that again. He knows Grimmel is only the first of many who will threaten Berk. Hiccup is a leader here: he’s forward-thinking enough to realize that if they don’t move now, they’d move eventually. And why let the death of people now be wasted if they needed to find a new place to begin with? Hiccup wanted to move Berk out to follow the dragons to the Hidden World in the first place. Grimmel only pushed his timetable.

[inhonoredglory]

I thought he was going to die toothless I mean. They played grimmel off as this nasty hunter. But I have one question why does he want to kill all night furies?

Good question! The basic concept behind Grimmel is that he’s the dark mirror to Hiccup––the Viking who, when pressured by his village, decides to go kill a Night Fury. Why Night Furies? Because, despite all the dragons we’ve seen all franchise long, the Night Fury is THE most dangerous and feared dragon in existence on the archipelago:

“The ultimate prize is the dragon no one has ever seen.”

“The unholy offspring of lightning and death itself. Never engage this dragon. Your only chance, hide and pray it does not find you.”

We can picture Grimmel as a young man, trying to prove himself to his village. Is he also a chief’s son? Or someone too intelligent and scrawny for his tribe? Someone who always thought differently from his people? Teased for playing mental, not physical, games? Did he try so hard to kill a Night Fury––inventing weapons and traps to nab a black dragon? How many times was he attacked by unsuccessful attempts? Who or what did he lose in each attack? How much of the Night Fury’s rage did he feel as he went head-to-head with them? Where in this process did Grimmel go from a boy to a man, and how was his pursuit of the Night Fury a part of that? And what brought Grimmel to the conclusion that dragons are not just killers, but “murderers”?

Sometime in his life as a young man, Grimmel put into thought just what killing a dragon means. Hiccup’s moral revelation was that Toothless, and by extension, dragons, are good and that they must be saved. Grimmel concludes that the Night Fury, and by extension, all dragons, are evil and must be killed:

“You wish dragons to live free, among us, like equals. A toxic notion. History has shown that we are the superior species. What if word of your misguided ideas were to spread? It would be the undoing of civilization as we know it.”

What I love about Grimmel is that he’s essentially an abstract-thinking fellow. He has a pointed moral statement to say about dragons. They’re not just nuisances or tools, but a threat to the “master race” of the human species (an utterly chilling and culturally relevant moral stance for a villain). And the Night Fury is at the top of that hierarchy. They are symbolic of the danger, the violence, the fear that people have about dragons.

Grimmel has a savior complex of a different kind from Hiccup. He wants to save civilization from dragons. Grimmel achieved fame and respect in his village from killing one Night Fury. He achieved fame and respect in the archipelago from killing all Night Furies. He has a place in this new world: a master trapper that will eliminate the dragon threat from the face of the earth.

[inhonoredglory]

Ruminations on Toothless the Alpha and Hiccup’s Motivations in the Big Goodbye to Berk and Dragons

I still really need to see the movie again to get better thoughts, but I had a theory on why Hiccup so easily abandoned Berk and why the farewell was necessary in order to save Toothless:

So at the start of the film, Hiccup is bringing the dragons into the human world. There’s nowhere dragons can go (apparently trappers are everywhere now, because Hiccup can’t relocate dragons to other islands like in the series; is there textual evidence for this? I need to see the film again). That, or Hiccup is that dragon-obsessed he wants to keep a sharp eye on them and have them all on Berk. Or because Toothless is the Alpha and Hiccup, who flies Toothless, needs to be around him so that Toothless can lead his own kind. Or a combination of these motives. Regardless, dragons are invading the human space by Hiccup’s invitation.

Hiccup realizes this setup isn’t going to work. Only he can tolerate dragons in such a density and, considering the needs of his people and of the dragons, he sets out to find the Hidden World.

Grimmel comes in, burns Berk to the ground, demolishes Hiccup’s home. Hiccup says, “We have to leave, all of us!” It’s not just dragons have to leave, but all of them––because Berk can’t hold this many dragons, and now that the town’s shot anyway, why not move to where the dragons are going? Did Hiccup intend to follow the dragons to the Hidden World regardless of Grimmel’s attack? Did he intend to have all the dragons go to the Hidden World, including Toothless and their other trained dragons? (will be regarded in a moment)

So now Hiccup’s plan is to have humans invade the dragon’s world. He doesn’t know it’s an invasion yet, just like he didn’t envision his Berk utopia as an invasion of dragons onto the human sphere.

Another key reason for Hiccup up and leaving Berk is because Toothless is the Alpha. If the dragons are going to the Hidden World, they can’t leave their Alpha behind. And I’m seriously wondering that if Hiccup knows he has to send the dragons to the Hidden World, then he also seriously knows he has to move Berk out to that place too in order for him to still be with Toothless. Where the dragons go, Toothless goes. Where Toothless goes, Hiccup goes. He’s using his chiefly influence to fulfill internal needs: be surrounded by dragons, save dragons, be with Toothless, etc.

But that’s where things begin to go wrong. Humans are not welcome in the Hidden World. People screw up and lead dragon trappers to their homes (read: Ruffnut’s very random but perhaps symbolic subplot). If Hiccup forces himself into the Hidden World, he risks bringing enemies not only to merely a place where free dragons live, but THE PLACE where free dragons live.

And that’s why he had to separate from Toothless and dragons as a whole. He had to begin seeing far outside of himself now, and into what was best for dragonkind and their Alpha and their future:

Trappers will always be looking for dragons. And to kill dragons, you look for their Alpha––Drago did it, Grimmel sought it. It’s a good strategy and Hiccup knows that’s gonna be the goal of any worthy villain and now he’s met two similarly threatening and successful enemies in just a year. If these villains want to find the Alpha, they are naturally looking to find Toothless. And of all the dragons he wants to save, Hiccup wants to save Toothless. Thus, he needs to hide the Alpha, even more so than all the other dragons. And so Toothless needs to be away from humans who will inevitably mess up and expose him.

Also, Hiccup probably feels the pain of having an Alpha being forcefully used to 1) kill his father, and 2) entrap their own species (both through Toothless in some manner too). He knows the twisted injustices a villain can make dragons do by controlling them. He doesn’t want Toothless to go through that again. He doesn’t want him controlled or forced to trap his own dragonkind because of his position.

So by separating himself and his people from dragons, he allows dragons to go to a place only dragons know about. He ensures their survival, but he also ensures that he’s not putting his own interests above that of both dragons and humans.