What's the Deal with Movies Changing the Original Story?
A look at 'How to Train Your Dragon' and the reasons why some book to movie adaptations are vastly different from their source material
Is it weird to do a movie review for something over a decade old? I mean, everyone that wanted to see it has seen it by now, there’s no buzz about it, and everyone has probably moved on with their lives. Doesn’t seem like a great investment, does it?
I think time is a great factor in being able to analyze an adaptation fairly. Let’s look at the adaptation to How to Train Your Dragon and what process the story might have undergone when changing from a novel to a movie.
The original How to Train Your Dragon is a 12 book series written by British author Cressida Cowell that hit the market in 2003. Its 2010 DreamWorks adaptation of the same name was released after book eight. Both follow the adventures of the less-than-Viking Viking named Hiccup. Although they share a title, at first glance these two stories have very little in common.
Two different worlds
In the film, Hiccup is a young Viking from a clan who defends their home from dragons on a daily basis. He wants desperately to prove to his father that he’s a real Viking by killing the most deadly and evasive dragon known to his clan. When faced with the actual task, he realizes that he’s not cut out to kill. He regrets wounding the dragon and spends the rest of the movie learning to tame (or train) the dragon to show his people that they don’t need to be afraid. His story is about breaking the cycle of fear and violence that surrounds his family and people in their daily lives. He becomes the first dragon tamer that eventually domesticates dragons to aid the Vikings with their somewhat miserable lives.
In the books, Hiccup is a young Viking from a clan who have domesticated dragons for centuries and use them in every part of their daily lives. As a right of passage, he’s tasked with taming his very first hunting dragon, which he tries to do by speaking with it. Unfortunately for him, his baby dragon is the most stubborn and lazy dragon his village has seen. His efforts amount to nothing and he’s generally shunned by his people for failing at such a simple task. His story is about becoming a hero and growing into his chieftain blood, despite being unconventional in methods and appearance.
Both Hiccups are unassuming in nature and have a soft spot for dragons, but that’s about where the surface similarities end. While both stories are created for younger audiences, there is considerably more death in the books and some pretty major differences in worldbuilding. One has domesticated dragons as a way of living, the other with dragons as mortal enemies to humans. You may wonder how this film can be considered an adaptation if its entire premise is different from the original story.
I received a comment sometime ago about the appeal of creating an adaptation that doesn’t adhere to the original idea or story. So, what’s the appeal?
Story structure in movies
Producers are always looking for some sort of automatic 'hook’ or tension for the story. This usually involves some sort of irony or immediate conflict straight from the beginning. Take 2009’s Avatar, where the main character is a military spy tasked with infiltrating an alien planet to gain intelligence and ends up falling in love with one of the natives.
Hiccup’s character in either story, a Viking who’s short, scrawny, can’t really fight, and doesn’t like violence, is a perfect set up for tension. It gives an automatic hook to the plot and adds a layer of tension right from the start.
Another appeal of Hiccup’s ‘unconventional’ character is his archetype. Cinema loves the underdog. Audiences love the underdog. We love to see someone unassuming and with lots of visible flaws. Marginalized characters and characters with visible flaws are more relatable. We see their struggles and successes and want them to achieve, just as we hope for success in our own lives.
Finally, movies, especially stand-alone films, are all about a concept called ‘the hero's journey.’ You probably learned about this in a high school English class. Movies are a lot like older works of literature. They focus on one singular protagonist and the journey they take to change their ways and grow into something new. There’s a reason why this formula exists in many classic and standard works of storytelling (if you’re interested in the screenplay ‘formula’ I recommend checking out The Nutshell Technique).
In both cases, we see Hiccup who is forced into a situation he doesn’t want to be in, struggles his way to success, and emerges on the other side a different person from who he used to be. Why would producers, given Hiccup’s ‘made for film’ character, change so much of his world and story?
Intentional story changes
1. Friendly vs unfriendly dragons
Although Hiccup’s original character already has a good archetype, journey, and ironic hook, in order to work in a movie it had to be tweaked. A Viking who chooses to talk to dragons instead of tame them is interesting, but it’s more interesting (in the context of film) to have a Viking boy who lives in a clan of dragon killers that wants to train dragons instead.
While later books certainly have unfriendly dragons (the dragon Furious who’s intent on eliminating the human race comes to mind) the first book deals mostly with the clans’ relationships with their dragons as a way of life. It takes six or seven books before we really get to see strong animosity between dragons and Vikings.
You don’t have six or seven books worth of time to set up a plot or bring conflict when creating a movie. Movies in general have roughly two hours to tell a complete story, and children’s movies have even less time. Getting straight into conflict and from conflict into resolution is a balancing act that MUST be achieved by the end of act III. Otherwise, you don’t really have a movie.
A complex story that needs multiple movies or installments to create a full picture is best suited for TV and series. The studio didn’t have the time to condense the same story the books tell into movie format. Had they tried, the movie would’ve been rated higher than PG and would have had a maximum of 10 minutes to cover the entirety of each book. That is not enough time to make sense of the story in a way for audiences who hadn’t read the novels to understand.
The solution? Make dragons aggressive straight from the beginning. It creates a good hook and gives the resolution a bigger sense of change. We as the audience can physically see how Hiccup’s journey made the world much different from before.
2. The addition/subtraction of characters
With a premise different from the original, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that most of the characters in the film are different or completely original to the film franchise. Hiccup keeps his name and most of his personality, but he’s about the only one.
Fishlegs - In the books, Fishlegs No-Name is Hiccup’s closest friend. The two of them are outcasts together, and both struggle to train their dragons in a way that is acceptable to their clans. In the film, Fishlegs doesn’t start out as Hiccup’s friend. This helps push Hiccup’s archetype as the underdog by isolating him from anyone in the movies.
Snotlout - The Snotlout from the books is actually Hiccup’s cousin and was, until Hiccup’s birth, the heir to the clan. He’s mean and nasty to Hiccup for no good reason during most of the series, and in later books even becomes a traitor to his entire clan and joins the evil side. In the movie, Snotlout is mean enough but just as Fishlegs does, he takes a liking to Hiccup as the dragons become tame. By the climax of the film, the two are friends and work side by side to rescue the dragons and their clan.
The twins - Tuffnut is one of Snotlout’s lackies, though by the end of the first book he is one of Hiccup’s followers and helps carry out the plan that saves their clans from two giant sea dragons. In the movie, he has a relatively small part to play (mostly in the form of comedic relief). His sister Ruffnut is entirely unique to the movies, put in for a little more female representation (no problems there).
Astrid - Hiccup doesn’t have a female love interest in the books, most noticeably because when the books start he’s only ten years old. There is a female Viking from the Bog-Burglar Tribe named Camicazi introduced in book 3. As her name implies, she’s a little insane and a kleptomaniac, which is helpful to them at times but not ideal for a Viking love interest. In the movies where all of the characters are aged up, we’re given Astrid to be a female lead. She’s a challenger to Hiccup, and of course provides the love story subplot that most movies expect.
Toothless - In arguably the biggest change made to the entire storyline, Toothless is actually a very small, winy, and wimpy dragon who can’t really fly (and certainly doesn’t want to). He is either sleeping, complaining, or causing mischief around the clan. In the movie, Toothless is the most dangerous dragon known to Hiccup’s tribe. He’s stubborn but very food motivated and loveable once tamed. He’s injured but able to fly with the help of a contraption made for him by Hiccup and large enough to fly at least two people on his back.
3. The ending
If you don’t want spoilers, probably don’t read this. That being said, the endings of both of these works are the same in spirit.
In the movie, Hiccup finds the nest of the dragons that attack his village. When his father finds out, he leads the clan to battle against the dragons wanting to exterminate them once and for all. Hiccup and his newly made friends decide to fight back and rush to the nest to stop their clan from destroying them. Instead, they take out the ‘mother’ dragon who leads them which frees the smaller dragons to become friends with the Vikings.
In the books, multiple Viking clans have gathered for a right of passage. During a test of control, Toothless starts a fight and none of the boys can control their dragons which results in their exile. They stumble across two massive sea dragons who washed up on the beaches as a result of a massive storm. Both the size of mountains, the dragons are going to eat all of the Vikings gathered. Hiccup formulates a plan that turns the two dragons against each other and finishes off the stronger once the other has died. He and the others who helped execute the plan are accepted back into their respective clans.
Giant dragon? Check. A fight formulated by Hiccup and won through his cunningness? Check (more or less). Hiccup gets friends and becomes a (somewhat) respected member of his clan? Check.
Of course the movie ending adds a bit of drama where you think that Hiccup might have been killed in the fight, but in spirit, the two aren’t that different. They both give what is required of them in terms of media expectations.
In the movie, Hiccup and his clan return home triumphant and now tame dragons to help them with daily life. This establishes a new normal that is essential to both wind down after the climax of the movie, but also in finishing the Hero's Journey at a new way of life.
In the books, everything returns to the way it was at the beginning of the book. Hiccup and Snotlout are still enemies, Toothless is still a pathetic, winy troublemaker who’s shameful to have around. Hiccup may have a little respect with his clan now, but it’s quickly forgotten in normal occurrences of him repeatedly messing up and not being a real Viking. This sets the stage for a much slower character arc (which the books need, because there’s 12 of them) and gives room for more events to take place that disrupt the ‘normal’ again and again.
In essence, it’s unfair to judge an adaptation for something it’s not trying to be. How to Train Your Dragon falls into the ‘Inspiration’ category of adaptations. It doesn’t claim to be a recreation of the originals, it’s an inspired work. Because it differs greatly from the original source material, you can’t really say that the book is better.
And if anyone is curious, my favorite characters from the books are Camicazi and Hiccup. I do also have a soft spot for Snotlout and the dragon Furious. They have the best character arcs by far. I will fight you on that. Also, you have to give Alvin the Treacherous points for persistence and his mom some points for going crazy…? I just think they’re very well-written villains.