Reversal of the Heart

[Beacon of Chaos]

A nice little animated short for you all. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHLwG3ioD4Y) Contains dragons and magic and stuff.

[Logic]

It was pretty good. I'd recommend it.

[Tvtyrant]

Radical. I felt sorry for the girl though, she didn't do anything wrong.

[endoperez]

Short animations thread?

EYRIE.

http://youtu.be/Q5jcSCDr2BM

It's about a boy, and features a sling.

[Beacon of Chaos]

Radical. I felt sorry for the girl though, she didn't do anything wrong.
Yeah, me too.


Short animations thread?

EYRIE.

http://youtu.be/Q5jcSCDr2BM

It's about a boy, and features a sling.
Very nice. Odd, but nice.

[Dr.Epic]

So he can shoot a dragon from several hundred feet away, but didn't notice a necklace on a creature a few feet from him?:smallconfused:

[MLai]

The most talented person in this entire project has got to be the background artist. They're beautifully stylistic.

[Aotrs Commander]

Eehh. If you're livin' in a land that has actual dragons with imbedded gems in it, you'd expect to be a little more careful.

Still, it all turned out right in the end (well, truthfully, rather better, I suspect), so no harm, no foul. In the grand scheme of things. Sorta.

[Killer Angel]

't was worth watching...


So he can shoot a dragon from several hundred feet away, but didn't notice a necklace on a creature a few feet from him?:smallconfused:

There are none so blind than those who refuse to see?

[Scowling Dragon]

Bluegh. I hate these kinds of stories.

Cause man is evil and pwer pewr dragons.

Its the story I hate the most because its JUST (Possibly MORE) as morally blind and black and white as the stories about how killing every dragon is AWESOME and how they don't have the right to live cause they eat allot and how they should all be destroyed.

BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.

These types of stories just make me FURIOUS! :furious:

Its utter crap! I LOVED the way it portrayed the Knight as EVIL! And it was OK how he was killed trying to impress YOU, Princess! But its TOTES OK. You got a NEW boyfriend now.

He died trying to avenge you you bimbo!

Just utter sentimental, predictable crap. Hate it with my heart.

[Killer Angel]

I'm not sure, maybe I'm reading too much... can we say that you didn't appreciate it? :smalltongue:

[Scowling Dragon]

Only a little bit. :smallwink:

[Aotrs Commander]

Its utter crap! I LOVED the way it portrayed the Knight as EVIL!

Pretty sure murdering sentient/sapient beings to steal their organs for decoration makes him automatically Evil regardless of what shape the being was.

I had not even the slightest sympathy for him at all.

He got off lightly, in my opinion.


And it was OK how he was killed trying to impress YOU, Princess! But its TOTES OK.

Yes, it was. Because impressing girls is not even distantly an excuse for killing sentient/sapients.

[Scowling Dragon]

Pretty sure murdering sentient/sapient beings to steal their organs for decoration makes him automatically Evil regardless of what shape the being was.

Thing is: thats what beings do.

Im pretty sure that the Dragon ate up a ton of humans because it was more convenient (Clusters of defenseless people in a tin can of a house: YUM), and their farmed animals and stuff because thats what meat eating predators do. Considering they grow into such big creatures the only thing that could realistically sustain them are cows and other big animals that are mostly concentrated at humans settlements. Which is probably the reason for Human/ Dragon Hostilities.

There are creatures on this earth that have HORRIFIC ways of attracting mates and its basic Biology:

"Me Strong and present to you corpse of killed animals. Mate with me"

Except since humans have enough brainpower to farm animals it has evolved too

"Me Smart and clever and cool enough to slay Dragon: Check it. Mate with me"

And I would realistically assume that Dragons have their own mating rituals involving stealing THE MOST cows, or maybe burning down forests in shows of impressionism.

And I doubt that Dragons where that smart or sentient (Their conveniently smart. Intelligent when the plot demands it, stupid and animalistic all the other time) considering they never contacted the humans before and said

"Heyo! Have the jewels of my dead ancestors! In return I will tons tons of your cows so i don't have to hunt and leave my Children behind to be slaughtered by other Predators!"

Or some other stuff like that. Or just reasonable gesturing or such. No need for a needlessly convoluted scheme that 90% would NOT attract the Knight that killed your child and would only punish some other girl and in all likelihood get her killed (Its Totes cool when dragons do horrific things cause...uh.....).


Yes, it was. Because impressing girls is not even distantly an excuse for killing sentient/sapients.

And thats my issue. It never shows Dragons acting Draconic. Razing villages to the ground, stealing food on mass because their huge Dragons.

If these Dragons are the magical "Hugs and Kisses, we don't need to follow biology because were that darn awesome" then I say:

Well then thats just lazy writing. You just made a perfect little creature to create a black and white morality play.

And Yes. I am over-analyzing the story. But thats because its a simplistic, and poorly written black and white morality play.

I Freaking Liked "How to Train your Dragon".

[Aotrs Commander]

Thing is: thats what beings do.

Even if it was, that wouldn't make it not evil.


Im pretty sure that the Dragon ate up a ton of humans because it was more convenient (Clusters of defenseless people in a tin can of a house: YUM), and their farmed animals and stuff because thats what meat eating predators do. Considering they grow into such big creatures the only thing that could realistically sustain them are cows and other big animals that are mostly concentrated at humans settlements. Which is probably the reason for Human/ Dragon Hostilities.


We don't see that and you are making a really big (and rather baseless) assumption that is how these dragons work. We have no idea what these dragons eat (did we see Girl Dragon eating in the short? I don't think we did, but someone correct me if I'm wrong); they may be carnivores, but they may be omnivores or they may even be mineralivores or something more exotic.


And thats my issue. It never shows Dragons acting Draconic. Razing villages to the ground, stealing food on mass because their huge Dragons.

Which, as you, say, appears to be your issue. You're judging it as how YOU see dragons (which appears to be basically a big nearly non-sentient predator animal) which is not even close to being the only take on them. Not everyone sees dragons like you do, and will not therefore write dragons the way you prefer them too because they don't see it the same way. And their ideas are no less valid than yours.

It's like expecting all zombies to be the same in every game, book and movie; it isn't going to happen. Different mediums will interpret them in different ways, from Warhammer/D&D's essentially mindless negative-energy powered automatons to the dubious-infector-plague fast zombies of more modern zombie B movies to the mythical voodoo zombies.

I have seen or read quite a lot of stories about dragons over the years, and the dragons therein covered a very wide phase-space of interpretations, from traditional mindless fire-breathing tanks to D&D's highly intelligent dragons1 and everything in between. Not all of them are even carnivores.


There are creatures on this earth that have HORRIFIC ways of attracting mates and its basic Biology:

"Me Strong and present to you corpse of killed animals. Mate with me"

It's also in the minority (off the top of my head, I recall it being reasonably common in birds (in whose numbers of species also include those who attract mates by dances, songs and outright craftsmanship) and spiders, in the latter case it being more of a case of "have corpse, I mate you while you distracted so you not eat me").

Ability to provide prey as a means of attracting a mate is merely one method(and not all that common, males fighting (or competing via displays) for rights to females tends to be a bit more common, for example).


Except since humans have enough brainpower to farm animals it has evolved too

"Me Smart and clever and cool enough to slay Dragon: Check it. Mate with me"

I'm not aware of any of the few primates that hunt engaging in prey-gifting as a means for acquiring a mate; any behavior from humans in that regard is not a biological imperative, it's something human culture came up with (and it's hardly endemic even to human cultures at that). It is not something humans need to do; as sentient/sapient creatures, they are quite capable not doing it. As a sentient/sapient species, humans are quite capable of choosing their own actions, so they actually have to get held to morale standards that animals don't. Furthermore ability to kill something actually means nothing to an actual romantic relationship between people even if it implies a correlation between physical ability and sexual performance on a purely physical attraction level.

Murder is still murder; and murder because you just want to get laid is pretty much the most petty, selfish and risible reason I can think of. No amount of justification or rationalisation will convince me otherwise.



Than again, I'm not even sure this line of thought is even relevant to the short, though, as it seemed more to me to be "look, I've brought you pretty jewellery" not "look, I killed a dragon", especially since killing a defenseless baby (or any species) is hardly a sign of quote unquote "manly alpha-male-ness" (sic) in the first place.

My impression was that the girl didn't even necessarily realise it was from a dragon (which makes her a bit stupid for not being aware of the wider world around her, but no worse than that).


And I doubt that Dragons where that smart or sentient

They can use magic, they clearly have some sort of society (otherwise you would simply NOT get that many creatures in one place), they're clearly intelligent and capable of making judgement calls (including potentially jumping to conclusions and making bad judgement calls in the throes of grief and rage); on top of that, the girl was clearly still very sentient while in dragon shape. These definately qualify.

I think the fact that the dragons didn't form up into a big mob and attempt to burn that castle to the ground (given what dragon girl did to the wall by accident, they could have done a lot of damage) or even go and just kill the unfortunate girl in the middle of the night speaks rather volumes about their level of intelligence.

(They - or at least this one (maybe the other dragons might have done differently) - showed more reserve than humans sadly been known to do. Lady Dragon only actually went after the humans (she assumed/thought were) responsible for her baby's death; whereas humans have an occasional tendancy to take that sort of thing out on anything that looks broadly the same as the thing they think did the deed, be it the same species or even ethnic minority (and not just in fiction, to great tragedy).)


I Freaking Liked "How to Train your Dragon".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the dragons in this story. I like the dragons in D&D, in Discworld, in Anne/Todd McCaffery's Pern series and in MLP: Friendship is Magic, all of which are very widely different. What's your point?

Regardless of how good that film is or is not (I wouldn't know), it is not a standard to which all other interpretations of dragons should be held to anymore than any other interpretation is.



1Actually, good example, D&D's colour-coded metallic dragons are good-aligned and the gem dragons are neutrally aligned, and neither group generally run around eating people or randomly eating people's cattle; that behavior tends to be more that of the Evil chromatic dragons.

[Scowling Dragon]

What I meant was that this story:

A: Made no sense (Because the Dragons BOTH have an Organized Society, yet at the same time are too stupid too bargain with humans).
B: Was as morally black and white as a story about a Knight going on a genocidal quest to murder every dragon ever.
C: I hate this type of "Humans are EVIL stories" because thats nature for you.

Personally, I thought the dragons where bigger bastards then even the human when they turned the girl into a Dragon.

I don't think killing the baby was really a sign of anything. It was bad, and the action was an evil one.

But the story itself made no sense (Or at the very least under explained) and was morally black and white.

But whatever. Thats opinion.

edit:

Also what I wrote about the biology stuff was utterly stupid.

My point was that I hate fantasy races that are both sentient and Naturally "Pure and Good" unless their simply divine.

Edit:

But I like Unicorns....Hmm....After some internal searching I realized I just hated the stories framing.

[Silfir]

Did he get off lightly? I thought he died (willingly, it would seem) to bring back the dragon cub he murdered.

Hmmm... no. No, the color scheme is slightly different. But then, so is the lighting? It did seem sort of confused. I mean, it's not like we know the limits of dragon magic in that particular universe. It's always said that no amount of punishment for a murderer can bring the victim back to life, who says it has to stay true in a story? But then, the shattered crystal is an image you can't ignore. No, that cub is dead.

So... As punishment for the murder, his life was ended. Because he showed true remorse, he was reborn a dragon. Did he get off lightly? I think he didn't. But his heart did.

It was a nice story.

[Scowling Dragon]

Ok I think I got what ticked me off:

The Framing.

Thing is, what I realized ticked me off wasn't the STORY but the way it was presented.

Instead of simply showing the guy killing the Dragon baby (A horrible act), it made him all EVIL looking.

And the act of revenge by the dragons is portrayed as positive and totes OK. And I guess the "Two wrongs make a right" aspect also bugged me.

Im just not a fan of stories that instead of letting us think ourselves what we think of the story, but instead spoonfeeds us the information.

It doesn't tell the whole story, allow for moral neutrality. Its the one sided presentation that drove me into a rage.

[Aotrs Commander]

(For the record, I would posit that Lady Dragon may well have assumed that the girl was either complict or directly responsible and too angry to consider it might have not been her fault. I'm not saying she was in the right, but her actions are plausible.)




Did he get off lightly?

Compared to what I've done to him, yes.

(Which is why I qualified that with "in my opinion.")

But I, as I have often noted, am not a very nice person (and "person" only in a the very loosest sense of the word...)




And I guess the "Two wrongs make a right" aspect also bugged me.

Weren't you three posts ago saying that you were confident the dragons must had gone around eating people and thus the implication that killing them for decoration was thus perfectly okay because "that's what being do?"

My impression is that your problem appears to be essentially that you don't like the fact that humans can be the villains and the dragons weren't especially villainous this time.



What would you have done if you were the dragon, then? Starting from the point you'd found your baby murdered on your doorstep?




(Me personally, I'd have made sure I was hunting down the right individual, and then... dealing with him in the appropriate manner.)

[Scowling Dragon]

I completely agree that what I said before was stupid (I was talking about Biology as an excuse for killing babies? Seriously?).

When I get mad I tend to get stupid.

What I realised is the story was made in a very off way.

Lets say we don't even go into how the Dragons work: The perspective was off all over the place.

This is what I would do:

First off we begin the tale centered on a lowly guard (The Knight), He was smitten by the Princess ever since he was a young lad and she was just a kid.

In an attempt to impress her he steeps the mountain to get the Dragons gem.

But there he only finds her child. But blinded by greed and Love, he murders the innocent creature in cold blood.

Then he gives the princess the amulet. When he returns he finds a Large Dragon over the tattered remains of the Princesses Dress.

He tries to avenge his love and tries to kill the Dragon and stuff. Same thing only no unnecessary Wizard Guy.

He ends up removing the amulet in the cave and realizes its her.

THEN he realizes what a monster he has been, and allows the Dragon to burn him, reincarnating as a Dragon.
_________________________________

OK things that this fixes:

We do not know that the Dragons in specific made the princess into a Dragon, making them less of horrid ***** with a plan that makes no sense.

No Smashing into the face that hes a bad guy. We get this already.

More moral Neutrality.

No unnecessary third wheel of a story with the Princess (Its like as if a story with a message accidentally stumbled into ANOTHER story with a message and they end up messing each other up), thus giving the story more focus.

Thing is, thinking it over, I found the guy abhorrent too. But the presentation was still weak, the story was unfocused and kinda off.

If the story was about a Princess that needed to learn about what true love is or some crap, then work it differently:

We center on the princess, and she is portrayed as shallow and greedy. She is given gifts by another prince and is all "I love you yo". But then she is cursed by a Witch into a Dragon.

Same story happens as in-between with the Mage boy taking out a book that says:

"Reverse Dragon Curses at Dragon Convention Center".

Same story, and she learns the value of people and devotion.


Not the both stories all clumped at once.

[endoperez]

Imagine a group of students coming up with ideas. It's group work, no true director or editor appears to make it all coherent.

The handsome knight gives the gem to the princess. The noble knight attacks his beloved by accident. The evil knight dies a Disney death. The repentant knight gets a new chance.
The evil dragon curses the target of her ire. The vengeful dragon breaths fire on her child's slayer. The mother dragon transforms the knight into a new baby for herself.

The peasant grows to become a hero. The young wizard gets a familiar. The transformed princess seeks the aid of a wizard.


It's clear the creators were artists and animators, visual people, and it's also clear they lacked writing direction. They seem to have put in several interpretations of the same characters, into a single story.

[MLai]

I liked the dragon princess + cottage wizard boy aspect, as it immediately reminded me of The Last Unicorn.
I'm not sure why the scrawny wizard would have bear paws, though. Maybe it was a casting accident.

[BlackDragonKing]

I thought the artistic direction and background music worked, but I really don't know what they were trying to say with the story.

Most of the time stories that tackle revenge point out that it tends to form a cycle, and getting vengeance won't bring back the person who was lost.

...Except here that's pretty much exactly what happens. The dragon taking revenge by proxy on an innocent and nearly getting her killed not only has no consequences, it also gives her revenge on the knight while at the same time "bringing back" her child.

Like someone above commented, it really does seem like the message from the dragon's perspective is "two wrongs make a right". I thought it was a decent short, but I've never liked the implication we should sympathize with people who have a legitimate grudge they intend to take out on innocent people.

[Kato]

I always feel I'm mostly unqualified to comment on artistic stuff apart from: "I liked it" or "I di not like it". But... I liked it.

Now to the story.

While, obviously, it was neither perfect nor entirely original, it was okay. Yeah, it has black/white morality, not overall but in the grand scheme and actually I think it could have been better but for what it was... it was good.


And the act of revenge by the dragons is portrayed as positive and totes OK. And I guess the "Two wrongs make a right" aspect also bugged me.

I got a different impression. The Mother was clearly an evil, vengeful character at this point and her revenge was not supposed to be taken for "totes OK". She hurt the Princess to hurt the Knight which was also portrayed as an evil act. Both Mother and Knight are evil to some extent, while the Princess and Mage are good. But clearly both evil characters are only evil due to the circumstances yet learn their lesson in the end, at least to a certain extent.

[MLai]

The Dragon Mother is not taking her anger out on an innocent, as ignorance does not equal innocence.

It's the same as a princess showing off her blood diamonds. You didn't persecute African villagers to dig up the diamonds but you sure as hell are perpetuating the cycle. And when you're the symbol of your country, you got more responsibilities than a newly-rich bourgeoisie. The buck stops at you.

I know the above is too complex for this short. But if you're going to go that deep into defining the Mother's actions, then you must also consider the Princess' (lack of) action.

[Pokonic]

Liked it a lot, nice story and such.




When I get mad I tend to get stupid.

If you say that but continue posting when your angry, you need to change something in your life. Also, control your anger or something.

[Scowling Dragon]

It's the same as a princess showing off her blood diamonds. You didn't persecute African villagers to dig up the diamonds but you sure as hell are perpetuating the cycle. And when you're the symbol of your country, you got more responsibilities than a newly-rich bourgeoisie. The buck stops at you.


Im pretty sure she had no idea that it was a Dragon Diamond.

[MLai]

Im pretty sure she had no idea that it was a Dragon Diamond.
Well, if you're a princess living in a world with dragon colonies, and you can't tell a huge glowing stone is a dragon diamond by looking at it, and you don't know that a dragon diamond can only be obtained by cutting it out of a living dragon, and dragons live in large social colonies and they never forget... well...

[Scowling Dragon]

Then this brings on the whole "Are the Dragons just idiots?" clause and then we can blame the story for not being in depth enough.

[MLai]

I think in terms of the romance angle, what the short is really espousing is that doing violent things which hurt an unseen party does not make a man impressive or romantic. Being considerate, kind, and caring about you regardless of what/who you are, is what makes a man impressive and romantic.

The short depicts the naive princess coming to realize that through her tribulations, by giving her a different perspective. It also had a side effect of making her sympathize with a party she probably used to consider as mere beasts.

In that regard, the dragons are wise. What's the point of killing a single violent man, causing collateral damage during the struggle, and propagating amongst humans that you are evil and bloodthirsty? Instead, she caused a member of human royalty see dragons and knights in a whole new light, without doing anything.

[Kato]

In that regard, the dragons are wise. What's the point of killing a single violent man, causing collateral damage during the struggle, and propagating amongst humans that you are evil and bloodthirsty? Instead, she caused a member of human royalty see dragons and knights in a whole new light, without doing anything.

I'm rather sure the Mother's intent was merely to have the Princess and/or Knight killed in the struggle. She couldn't have possibly foreseen her travel to regain her humanity.

[MLai]

I'm rather sure the Mother's intent was merely to have the Princess and/or Knight killed in the struggle. She couldn't have possibly foreseen her travel to regain her humanity.
Then she is cunning and vengeful.
"You killed my darling hatchling. I will trick you into killing the human most dear to you."
Not stupid. Also understandable motivation very appropos to general fairy tale themes.

[Kato]

Then she is cunning and vengeful.
"You killed my darling hatchling. I will trick you into killing the human most dear to you."
Not stupid. Also understandable motivation very appropos to general fairy tale themes.
But not "wise (and/or well intentioned)".
I never claimed she was stupid, merely her action was evil and supposed to be. Though, I'm willing to accept the fact that the Princess might unknowing to the gems origin and not to blame for it either.

Blood for blood is not a path "wise" beings take.

[MLai]

But in the end, the Dragon Mom left the princess alone, and instead exacted her vengeance on the person deserving of it.

She didn't "Aha now watch me incinerate the female human most dear to you, little knight!"

So arguably every single character in this story learned something and grew a little by the very end.

[Killer Angel]

I'm rather sure the Mother's intent was merely to have the Princess and/or Knight killed in the struggle. She couldn't have possibly foreseen her travel to regain her humanity.

Indeed.
Mama dragon wanted revenge and blood. She didn't have the princess', but she obtained the knight in front of her breath weapon. Either way, someone had to die.

[Scowling Dragon]

But in the end, the Dragon Mom left the princess alone, and instead exacted her vengeance on the person deserving of it.

She didn't "Aha now watch me incinerate the female human most dear to you, little knight!"


Lets put it this way:

You kill my son. So I grab your wife, tie her to a chair, give her plastic surgery and orchestrate it so that she looks like the one who killed your wife.

You grab a gun and almost kill her (Not my planning that you didn't). Then there is the reveal where then I show up and say "I made you almost kill your wife". Then I murder you Give you amnesia and tell you your part of my family. And let your wife go.

Thats not very kind. Thats brutal and VERY psychotic. Just because I didn't ENSURE that your wife dies doesn't mean Im any less of a monster.

[Silfir]

True wisdom means immunity from mistakes made in moments of weakness?

I'm a bit confused about the claims of Black-and-White morality made here. Even the knight, murderer that he was, showed true remorse in the end. The dragon mother involved the princess in a plot of revenge that, while understandable, was not entirely fair or justified, but in the end there were a lot worse things she could have done in the throes of vengefulness, and she did end up teaching the princess an invaluable lesson about the world (and, after a fashion, saved her from marrying a child murderer) and saved the knight's reversed heart from dying alongside his tainted self. If anything, the message is that everyone's heart can change, even if it does not undo their actions. No one is entirely good or evil, only their actions can be.

I think the dragon mother showed wisdom, even if she showed anger, cunning and vengefulness as well. We know little of the history of dragons, and humans, in this world; perhaps contact had long been avoided, to the point that humans had forgotten that dragons are very much like them, and thought of them as beasts to be hunted as trophies. The dragon mother must have realized that simply hunting down the murderer for punishment was not enough; she had to teach humans to understand dragons again. She chose a princess perhaps because the princess would one day be queen, and be more in a position to spread her understanding of dragonkind - either herself, or as a living example through her tragic death. (Imagine the knight had killed the dragon, never found the princess, and found the necklace. He would have learned his lesson even then, and perhaps even accepted the dragon's punishment. Maybe this was an acceptable result, too, in the eyes of the dragon mother. Maybe she sought to test humans as a whole. Maybe even she didn't entirely know what she was doing. We do know that she watched the human princess every step of the way, and she did not foresee every detail of her journey unfolding.) We also see in the end that rather than love the knight, the princess comes to love the scholar. Intentionally or not, the dragon mother set her on the "right" path, at least the path that will minimize suffering between dragons and humans.

The wizard - the scholar - is the only character shown with a book, a book not just about magic, but dragons, too. His role is to show the importance of knowledge, of remembering lessons once learnt, and the power it holds. The pen is mightier than the sword, because it allows us to remember the lessons of the past. As a scholar (despite his humble origins - just one book, and a crappy branch for a wand), he was open to new ways of thinking, to see what was in front of him rather than what his fears and instincts screamed at him - to see the dragon for who she was, rather than the monster. (I think I remember the dragon mother showing some degree of amazement at seeing their contact unfold.) We, as humans, need to embrace knowledge, seek understanding of the new, to avoid the terrible tragedies committed by the knight, who acts before he thinks, on simple truths and dogma.

I didn't really feel there was anything superfluous in that movie. It's not just a story about good and evil, but one about open and closed minds. It felt pretty much right. Maybe with the exception of the fuzzy animal, but then every fantastic animated movie seems to have a fuzzy animal of some kind. It's probably a law of animated film-making.

[Silfir]

Lets put it this way:

You kill my son. So I grab your wife, tie her to a chair, give her plastic surgery and orchestrate it so that she looks like the one who killed your wife.

You grab a gun and almost kill her (Not my planning that you didn't). Then there is the reveal where then I show up and say "I made you almost kill your wife". Then I murder you Give you amnesia and tell you your part of my family. And let your wife go.

Thats not very kind. Thats brutal and VERY psychotic. Just because I didn't ENSURE that your wife dies doesn't mean Im any less of a monster.

Good thing that's an entirely different story, and that Reversal of the Heart never intended to portray the dragon mother as unambiguously good.

Let's take one step back. You're someone who kills sons. Does your wife not know that you do these things? Have you misled her? Or do you openly embrace your son-killing, and collect trophies of them for your wife to wear as a necklace? Think of the messed-up constellation of collective ignorance that requires your wife to wear such a necklace without being aware of the horror of your actions.

You're massively oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness. I'm not sure you've given the story a fair chance just yet.

[MLai]

You mean there isn't a moral lesson in the fuzzy animal?

I am offended! :smallmad:

[Silfir]

Erm, bla bla childlike innocence and wonder bla bla?

God I hope that worked.

[Scowling Dragon]

Let's take one step back. You're someone who kills sons. Does your wife not know that you do these things? Have you misled her? Or do you openly embrace your son-killing, and collect trophies of them for your wife to wear as a necklace? Think of the messed-up constellation of collective ignorance that requires your wife to wear such a necklace without being aware of the horror of your actions.

Too bad the story doesn't tell us! Because it switches perspective midway, and tells nothing about what kinds of Dragons are these, and what the Princess/ Humanity knows. How the Dragons act (So the little that we know is that they are Vengeful and willing to harm others to get revenge. Not a good sign).

Its a Failure of the story that it didn't make sure we KNEW these things.

[MLai]

Wait. Didn't you start off in this thread by being Offended that the humans are depicted as evil and the dragons are depicted as "pewr pewr dragons"?

[Scowling Dragon]

Ugh I already wen't through this:


I completely agree that what I said before was stupid (I was talking about Biology as an excuse for killing babies? Seriously?).

When I get mad I tend to get stupid.

What I realised is the story was made in a very off way.

Lets say we don't even go into how the Dragons work: The perspective was off all over the place.

This is what I would do:

First off we begin the tale centered on a lowly guard (The Knight), He was smitten by the Princess ever since he was a young lad and she was just a kid.

In an attempt to impress her he steeps the mountain to get the Dragons gem.

But there he only finds her child. But blinded by greed and Love, he murders the innocent creature in cold blood.

Then he gives the princess the amulet. When he returns he finds a Large Dragon over the tattered remains of the Princesses Dress.

He tries to avenge his love and tries to kill the Dragon and stuff. Same thing only no unnecessary Wizard Guy.

He ends up removing the amulet in the cave and realizes its her.

THEN he realizes what a monster he has been, and allows the Dragon to burn him, reincarnating as a Dragon.
_________________________________

OK things that this fixes:

We do not know that the Dragons in specific made the princess into a Dragon, making them less of horrid ***** with a plan that makes no sense.

No Smashing into the face that hes a bad guy. We get this already.

More moral Neutrality.

No unnecessary third wheel of a story with the Princess (Its like as if a story with a message accidentally stumbled into ANOTHER story with a message and they end up messing each other up), thus giving the story more focus.

Thing is, thinking it over, I found the guy abhorrent too. But the presentation was still weak, the story was unfocused and kinda off.

If the story was about a Princess that needed to learn about what true love is or some crap, then work it differently:

We center on the princess, and she is portrayed as shallow and greedy. She is given gifts by another prince and is all "I love you yo". But then she is cursed by a Witch into a Dragon.

Same story happens as in-between with the Mage boy taking out a book that says:

"Reverse Dragon Curses at Dragon Convention Center".

Same story, and she learns the value of people and devotion.


Not the both stories all clumped at once.

This is what I said later.

[MLai]

When I get mad I tend to get stupid.
I guess this just happens to all kinds of dragons. :smallamused:

[Silfir]

I understood more than enough about the relationship between the humans and the wizard just through watching the movie, actually.

The Princess is not a third wheel, neither is the wizard. (Have you read what I wrote, too?) She is just as integral to the story as the rest of it. That's the assumption you have to start from when you experience any kind of story; that everything is significant in some way.

Once you've identified what the author is trying to do, it can turn out to have been for an extremely dumb reason, and you have every right to complain. There's also a possibility that I read far too much into things - things the author never intended - but given that I just saw the movie today and the author spent two years animating, designing every second of it, I'll hazard a guess that everything I just thought of, and much more, went through her mind as well at some point. She's spent far more time writing this story than you and I will ever spend hearing it and thinking about it.

[Scowling Dragon]

I guess this just happens to all kinds of dragons. :smallamused:

Yup.

Also:

Because the Story doesn't give us any reason to believe otherwise here is MY backstory (As Supported as any other backstory. AKA not at all):

The Dragons are unholy and unnatural spawns of the Demonic aberration god sent to destroy and pillage the land. They cast spells, create the undead, spread disease and pestilence with their magical powers, summon Devils, and steal our people to transform them into their spawn.

The Knight was sent BY the Princess to stop one of the spawn from entering its second stage of development, which would cause a massive influx of energy, destroying every sentient being in a 10 mile radius.

Jewels from Dragons are a symbol of safety in the Kingdom, as every dead Dragon= Less horrible monsters.

Wizards are Dragons Disciples. And worship them to bring about the coming apocalypse.

This interpretation is as valid as any of your interpretations where the Dragons are magical fart eating butterfly lovers.

[Kato]

Well, while I do not support Scowling's idea of the backstory it is just as valid as any other, given there is none. Though, the fact that the mother apparently really cares for her child from what little the first minute or so does tell we can assume they are not hateful demon spawns but have some concept of good and evil.

Also, obviously, the ending hints at a much more if not benevolent, at least neutral "personality".

edit: hey, there was another post here just now!

[Silfir]

Well, while I do not support Scowling's idea of the backstory it is just as valid as any other, given there is none. Though, the fact that the mother apparently really cares for her child from what little the first minute or so does tell we can assume they are not hateful demon spawns but have some concept of good and evil.

Also, obviously, the ending hints at a much more if not benevolent, at least neutral "personality".

edit: hey, there was another post here just now!

That was me. I thought better of it. I'd like to apologize if I seemed dismissive of anyone's opinions, or am about to seem like I am.

Here's the thing though: "There is no backstory", as a claim, borders on the ridiculous. You've already proved it yourself by pointing out what we've seen. What we see in the movie allows us to deduce a plausible backstory, and the nature of the relationship between dragons and humans, and some of the limits of the power of dragon magic. We do not get the full backstory, nor do we get a historical account of facts, or any unrelated questions answered, and some parts are left open (and, we have to assume, deliberately so). But we do get enough to understand the story, if we keep our eyes and minds open and look.

This is what I think. But I'm just me.

[Kato]

This is what I think. But I'm just me.
Obviously :smallbiggrin:

No, of course we will somehow make up our own ideas of the backstory and a certain backstory is implied by the story but generally, as long as the idea one has of the background doesn't go against what is shown it is valid. It is of course not the only valid idea but valid nonetheless.

If we claim the story makes a point of the dragons being not evil by portraying the love between Mother and Child (sidenote: am I sexist in some way because I'm almost convinced the Child was a Daughter? Heck, am I seixst because I think it is a Mother dragon, not a father?) yet the dragons are also portrayed in black which in our culture is a sign of evilness, "Color coded for your convenience" and such.

[Scowling Dragon]

Here's the thing though: "There is no backstory", as a claim, borders on the ridiculous. You've already proved it yourself by pointing out what we've seen. What we see in the movie allows us to deduce a plausible backstory, and the nature of the relationship between dragons and humans, and some of the limits of the power of dragon magic.

Plausible as in what? Even if we don't go the extremist way that I did, its still VERY possible to interpret the Dragons actions as monstrous and sadistic.

I though that the Story was clumsily framed. I wouldn't be having this argument if it wasn't.

Your Saying the Dragons Taught the Girl Wisdom, I say that she had no realistic control over the situation and thus it was much more likely a horrible revenge plot.

You Say that the Girl was horrible by taking the Amulet. Again, this could be a cultural thing. We don't know if the Dragons are good or not (And From what we see they tend to be sadistic and vengeful) and thus I am given to assume that they are Standard fantasy Dragons. If given no reason to doubt the standard, I will revert to the standard.

OK, bla bla bla:

My point is: Story is unfocused, which results in a story that can be interpreted in two completely alternate ways, even though the framing is trying to force only one form of interpretation.

Just because the framing is FORCING one form of interpretation, doesn't make the opposite one any weaker.

I present to you the Movie: Reality Bites.

Its about how getting a job is lame, and how its cool too mooch off your parents and be a total **** because your too smart for the system.


And Im sick of blabbing about this short. I really dislike it. Consider it unfocused and poorly framed. I don't want to talk about it any more.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yup.

Also:

Because the Story doesn't give us any reason to believe otherwise here is MY backstory (As Supported as any other backstory. AKA not at all):

The Dragons are unholy and unnatural spawns of the Demonic aberration god sent to destroy and pillage the land. They cast spells, create the undead, spread disease and pestilence with their magical powers, summon Devils, and steal our people to transform them into their spawn.

The Knight was sent BY the Princess to stop one of the spawn from entering its second stage of development, which would cause a massive influx of energy, destroying every sentient being in a 10 mile radius.

Jewels from Dragons are a symbol of safety in the Kingdom, as every dead Dragon= Less horrible monsters.

Wizards are Dragons Disciples. And worship them to bring about the coming apocalypse.

This interpretation is as valid as any of your interpretations where the Dragons are magical fart eating butterfly lovers.

By that logic, I could easily make an arguement that the dragons were inherently good, divine beings and the knight was psychopathic manic who spent his free time decapitating grannies, eating babies and setting people's internal organs on fire and the princess was locked in that tower and she was grateful when he gave her jewellry because it meant one more day when decide not to force himself on her after a sham marriage or something. And when he fell to his knees at the end there, it wasn't because he had a change of heart, it was just because he realised that he was in a room full of dragons and a wizard and he had no possible method of escape and was going to be sent straight to his eternal punishment in hell by the vengeful god-fire of the Holy Dragon Queen... And say that was just as valid. Which would be utterly ridiculous.

In practise, however, I agree with Silfir. There was plenty enough explanation in there, I think you like it, Scowling, because it doesn't fit with your personal image of either dragons or humans. I get the impression that you want the knight to be the protagonist and the dragon to be the unambiguous villain1, but that's not what the story was going for.

Honestly, dude, with the way you've been reacting, it's almost like you're taking this knight character as a direct attack to you personally... As if the concept of a man who goes out to kill monsters to impress his girlfriend being perhaps not always being very laudible is against your holy writ or something. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but you're seriously making me wonder.

It is, at the end of the day, a simply fairy tale, consummeate to its running time and lack of dialogue2, that would not have been at all out of place in a book by the Brothers Grimm.




Indeed.
Mama dragon wanted revenge and blood. She didn't have the princess', but she obtained the knight in front of her breath weapon. Either way, someone had to die.

To be fair, I suspect the chances of Dragon Horatio Caine turning up to arrest the knight and cart him off to Dragon Jail to be an unlikely outcome...!(Actually, the knight was better off the way it happened, H gets all kinds of nasty when children are involved.) I'm pretty sure, too, that there are more places than not the knight would be dancing the hemp fandango even if he was arrested...

So I don't think there may have been all that many options open to her. I'll grant you, the one she choose may not have been the best one, even if it did turn out all right in the end. (Or, of course, it may have been the only one; those dragons didn't seem to be as sturdy as some, so attacking directly may have been sucidal. If she knew she couldn't negotiate and main force was out of the question, that may have been the only thing she thought she could do. Don't make it right, of course.)

Hiring PC adventurers to go after Mr Knight might have been an elegant solution, of course, assuming she could get through the language barrier... For a given value of "elegant..." And not exactly the stuff fairy tales are made of!



1Let's be clear, Lady Dragon is not a shining example of virtue... But she kinda is in line with the behavior of tweaked-off spellcasters in fairy tales (or even mythology), who tend to be kinda asshats on a good day, truth be known. The fairy or wizard or whoever turned the prince into the titular Beast, for one "shining" example...

2Trying to tell a complex story without dialogue, where the only option is "show" and never "tell" in a thirteen minute animated short (made by folks who are still learning the trade at that) is asking a bit much, I think.

[erikun]

I got the impression that the dragon(s) were not meant to come off as human. They're cruel and vengeful, more like a force of vengence (and penance, for the knight at the end) than a character that we are supposed to relate to.

Overall, I liked the movie. It is interesting to see how unpopular the slay-the-dragon tales have been as of late, and this is kind of a modern take on the concept: The hero goes out and slays the dragon for reputation, but learns that spending all your life dragon-slaying is neither rewarding nor beneficial.

[Kato]

I got the impression that the dragon(s) were not meant to come off as human. They're cruel and vengeful, more like a force of vengence (and penance, for the knight at the end) than a character that we are supposed to relate to.
Opinions really seem to diverge on this, which is interesting in and off itself.


Overall, I liked the movie. It is interesting to see how unpopular the slay-the-dragon tales have been as of late, and this is kind of a modern take on the concept: The hero goes out and slays the dragon for reputation, but learns that spending all your life dragon-slaying is neither rewarding nor beneficial.
Well... it's basically envrironmentalism. It's bad to kill animals. And dragons are more human than animals in many depictions. Going around and killing things for trophies is just getting less and less popular in mainstream western culture. When was the last instance (living) trophy hunting was depicted as good thing?

[123456789blaaa]

Okay I may be off here but it was my interpretation that the mama dragon turned the knight into a dragon hatchling and flew off the take care of him, not that she sacrificed him in order to bring the previous hatchling back. That's why I thought its called Reversal of the Heart, the mama dragon realized two wrongs don't make a right.

I thought this because the dragon hatchling at the beginning has purple eyes but the knight-hatchling has blue ones.

[Silfir]

Okay I may be off here but it was my interpretation that the mama dragon turned the knight into a dragon hatchling and flew off the take care of him, not that she sacrificed him in order to bring the previous hatchling back. That's why I thought its called Reversal of the Heart, the mama dragon realized two wrongs don't make a right.

I thought this because the dragon hatchling at the beginning has purple eyes but the knight-hatchling has blue ones.

No, I think you're right on the money.

[Aotrs Commander]

Okay I may be off here but it was my interpretation that the mama dragon turned the knight into a dragon hatchling and flew off the take care of him, not that she sacrificed him in order to bring the previous hatchling back. That's why I thought its called Reversal of the Heart, the mama dragon realized two wrongs don't make a right.

I thought this because the dragon hatchling at the beginning has purple eyes but the knight-hatchling has blue ones.

The thought did cross my mind, to be honest; though at the time of viewing, I wasn't sure if it was the same baby dragon (as I couldn't remember what the bay's eye colour was and it wasn't important enough for me to go check). It's certainly equally as plausible than the knight dying to create a new baby dragon, at any rate and maybe slightly more so than dying to resurrect the original, if the two were indeed markedly different.

It is a little ambiguous, but, as I said before, some things are just quite hard to (clearly) explain without any kind of dialogue, so some level of ambiguity is going to be inevitable.

(I will also freely admit, I am a vindictive bastard that would prefer to see the antagonists die horribly in nasty ways at the best of times, so I do have some degree of personal bias!)

[123456789blaaa]

The thought did cross my mind, to be honest; though at the time of viewing, I wasn't sure if it was the same baby dragon (as I couldn't remember what the bay's eye colour was and it wasn't important enough for me to go check). It's certainly equally as plausible than the knight dying to create a new baby dragon, at any rate and maybe slightly more so than dying to resurrect the original, if the two were indeed markedly different.

It is a little ambiguous, but, as I said before, some things are just quite hard to (clearly) explain without any kind of dialogue, so some level of ambiguity is going to be inevitable.

(I will also freely admit, I am a vindictive bastard that would prefer to see the antagonists die horribly in nasty ways at the best of times, so I do have some degree of personal bias!)

Also note that the knights eyes are blue as well.

Really though, the thing that really makes me think that the knight didn't die is that it sort of clashes with the rest of the film. I mean, the princess and the wizard look at each other and smile when before when the knight was getting a flame bath they were dismayed. You could make the argument that they guessed the same thing I did but I think that's a bit to complicated for this film.

Although looking at the film again I actually think it's more likely that the knight was reincarnated into the form of a hatchling instead of just being transformed. It explains why he's yawning instead of freaking out.

On the film itself: I think it was good and that the person who created it should feel proud of themselves for doing so. I can see why Scowling had such a knee-jerk angry reaction to it though. It's just so obviously trying to manipulate your emotions at the beginning. So much so that I actually felt myself being pushed towards rooting for the knight.

[erikun]

Also note that the knights eyes are blue as well.

Really though, the thing that really makes me think that the knight didn't die is that it sort of clashes with the rest of the film. I mean, the princess and the wizard look at each other and smile when before when the knight was getting a flame bath they were dismayed. You could make the argument that they guessed the same thing I did but I think that's a bit to complicated for this film.

Although looking at the film again I actually think it's more likely that the knight was reincarnated into the form of a hatchling instead of just being transformed. It explains why he's yawning instead of freaking out.

On the film itself: I think it was good and that the person who created it should feel proud of themselves for doing so. I can see why Scowling had such a knee-jerk angry reaction to it though. It's just so obviously trying to manipulate your emotions at the beginning. So much so that I actually felt myself being pushed towards rooting for the knight.
Yeah, this is why I called it the knight's penance rather than the knight's death. It is kind of hard to tell if he died or was transformed from the flames, but he definitely did it - and did it willingly - because he'd realized just what kind of a person he'd turned into by the end of the movie.