How To Train Your Dragon 2: Trailer

[LadyTevar]

OMG OMG OMG SWQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! That is just Beautiful! I can't wait to see it in 3D!!!

And Wow... Hiccup has Grown.

[Crossroads Inc.]

((Picks Jaw up from floor))

Wow... Um... Woooow thats some hard core awesome
(yes yes, utterly unreal, Hiccup would never be able to glide with such small (wings)

But WOW! That armor of his is pretty hard core to, He is ALL sorts of grown up!

[madd0ct0r]

that isn't flying, it's falling with style
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsuit_flying

[Ahriman238]

Did he lock the tail-flap open? If so, Toothless flying full-time without help is a possibility.

[Tsyroc]

Did he lock the tail-flap open? If so, Toothless flying full-time without help is a possibility.

There is a holiday special where he created a device that allowed Toothless to control the flap full time. At the end of the show Toothless destroyed it because he preferred to fly with Hiccup. This new one looks like it can work either way so they must have come to some sort of understanding.

[Borgholio]

Never seen the original. Does Toothless require the flap to fly?

[Ahriman238]

Yes, it's a prosthetic Hiccup made after he lost his tail fin and couldn't fly. Thus, he needs Hiccup in the saddle to adjust the flap to his motions or he's grounded.

[Sea Skimmer]

There is a holiday special where he created a device that allowed Toothless to control the flap full time. At the end of the show Toothless destroyed it because he preferred to fly with Hiccup. This new one looks like it can work either way so they must have come to some sort of understanding.

The DeBlois said both are the same age; 15 and now 20, so they rationally grew up some on the matter.

The special is all the heck over youtube for anyone who hasn't seen it. Dreamworks is slow to the point of barely caring about oppressing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFufkDSvA2E

[Broomstick]

((Picks Jaw up from floor))

Wow... Um... Woooow thats some hard core awesome
(yes yes, utterly unreal, Hiccup would never be able to glide with such small (wings)

Are you sure about that?

Let me introduce you to wingsuit proximity flying:


Needless to say, precision is crucial. It is an extremely unforgiving form of flight.

Also, in real life people use parachutes to stop, not friendly dragons.

[Sea Skimmer]

The problem isn't the size of Hiccups wing; it’s the fact that it isn't really a wing to start with. Real wing suits have small air inlets to inflate them into an actual wing shape, that’s why they look so bulky in the air but not on the ground. Rather key feature. Just stretching a flat piece of material between your limbs and body won't do a lot except slow down your descent, never mind alone give you whatever ridiculous glide slope he has in the clip. An inflating wing suit made of leather or what have you might well work and be plausible for the period, but it’s not what we see.

Course, since Hiccup already has superhuman endurance in the face of 500mph wind blast among his other mild superpowers, I assume he just physically pounded whatever magic aura lets Toothless fly and other dragons comically violate conservation of mass into the leather. No more problem.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm actiually glad they're making a sequel to this, because its one of the animated movies in recent times that has really caught my interest (although I got a real kick out of Rise of the Guardians too.. thought that was a good one.) I can't wait to see it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Two sequels in fact, 2014 and 2016. What is good though is the idea for two it turned out was not a Dreamworks cash in, no Shrek syndrome. Rather it was a condition Dean DeBlois insisted on to do any further work on the franchise; Dreamworks originally only wanted to commit to a single one. So unlike so much in hollywood multiple sequel land, this pair actually has a interconnected plot from the start. He described it as movie act one two and three, reasonable enough for me. Though on the other hand since the original was the product of a panic reworking of the entire plot, maybe giving him years of time won't work out so well. Who knows.

I never saw Rise of the Guardians, mainly because its advertising campaign actually came to make me hate it at the time. I think the company recently fired the head of its marketing department, no doubt linked to that movie being a complete flop even though reviews were not bad. You'd think someone would have figured out that showing the exact same ad, everywhere, at all times, I once saw it oh about forty times in a row on youtube, would be a bad idea no? But I'm not sure Dreamworks has ever figured out that its movies are only successful when they and the marketing appeal to a broad audience, not just six year olds.

[Iroscato]

I'm not sure ROTG was a complete flop, but it didn't do great compared to Dreamwork's other big hitters. Which is a shame, 'cause that film was all kinds of awesome.
As for Dragon, I liked the symbiotic relationship that a Hiccup and Toothless had, and the musical score was fantastic, so I'm looking forward to seeing where they go from there.

[Sea Skimmer]

As far as the box office goes it was a flop, the company formally took a 87 million dollar write off on it. This is over half the budget. They might break even in the long term from TV monies and DVDs because it wasn't actually that bad a movie, but that's a lot of ground to make up. In any event that's a huge loss to admit. They don't make many movies either, its not like Disney taking a 100+ million loss on the Lone Ranger where they literally could laugh it off because of how much money Ironman 3 alone made them the same year. Luckily though the Croods did do well for Dreamworks, so the fact that Turbo is now also a borderline flop isn't crippling to the firm, its just not a healthy place to be.

[LadyTevar]

A pity, I liked Rise of the Guardians.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Rise of the Guardians created a brilliant universe, just like 'Dragon' has. I'm going to enjoy this movie.

[bilateralrope]

As far as the box office goes it was a flop, the company formally took a 87 million dollar write off on it. This is over half the budget. They might break even in the long term from TV monies and DVDs because it wasn't actually that bad a movie, but that's a lot of ground to make up. In any event that's a huge loss to admit. They don't make many movies either, its not like Disney taking a 100+ million loss on the Lone Ranger where they literally could laugh it off because of how much money Ironman 3 alone made them the same year. Luckily though the Croods did do well for Dreamworks, so the fact that Turbo is now also a borderline flop isn't crippling to the firm, its just not a healthy place to be.

Is that before or after Hollywood accounting ?

[Iroscato]

In any case, I'm just gonna sit here and wait patiently for Kung Fu Panda 3 in 2015

[Sea Skimmer]

Is that before or after Hollywood accounting ?

Doesn't matter. They spent around 150 million on the movie, and 150 million was very badly spent advertising it, and the theaters are also taking a (small) cut up front. It made about 300 million in the box office, it would be rather hard to turn that into a secret hidden profit.

Its just reality that if you blow that kind of money making a film, you need to be grossing towards the half billion range to be profitable, and for a good film that isn't that hard to do anymore. This is a lot different then some of the billion dollar grossing live action movies that cost 200 million + 250 million in adds and trying to claim no profit. Besides taking that write off the company IIRC also laid off hundreds of people, and delayed the release of several other movies to rework them, I forget which as they were nothing that looked interesting anyway.

Even on movies Hollywood accounting does massively distort, they usually don't go and take a fake write off. Doing such a thing is death to your stock price and executives get fired based on stock price.

[Sea Skimmer]

Another trailer was released; it also happens to spoil a big plot point of the movie, which is par the course for Dreamwork's less than optimal marking department, so someone cut down the trailer to remove those bits. Spoiler

spoiler is that a new character is in fact Hiccup's 'dead' mother, who's been collecting dragons, this is not a new spoiler, but I doubt most people heard that before so the warning seems wise

Nonspoiler trailer
http://vimeo.com/82274311

Original trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9a4PvzlqoQ

[Koolaidkirby]

Is it just me, or is this the first amputee protagonist in DW film?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Is it just me, or is this the first amputee protagonist in DW film?

It is, and really I can't recall of one in Animated history period, and least none from any of the Big name animation studies.
Rather cool if you think about it.

Also, after I got over the initial excitement, I was SO PISSED at realizing that they gave away such a MASSIVE plot point in the trailer!

[Sea Skimmer]

Seems we can in fact blame Fox, whom Dreamworks just recently partnered with as its new distributor, for that trailer, company's own people were against it for being so blatantly spoiler.

Best of all its going to start being shown in front of The Hobbit Part 2 after Christmas so a large portion of the western viewing audience will have this spoiled by force. Brilliance!

It is, and really I can't recall of one in Animated history period, and least none from any of the Big name animation studies.
Rather cool if you think about it.

Without resorting to Google the only thing I can think of at all animated is Edward Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist, and that isn't a movie, though it had a movie that actually got into a few theaters in the US. Even resorting to Google for a moment, I'm not finding anyone for a big name movie, though I sure didn't look enough to rule it out.

[madd0ct0r]

are we counting star wars?

[Crazedwraith]

are we counting star wars?

Well.. Star Wars in not animated.

Except I guess if we're talking Anakin and the Clone Wars movie.