for-the-love-of-hijack - Tumblr blog

for-the-love-of-hijack · 15 hours ago

Text

Live-action Hiccup as a reflection of neurodivergent childhood: a soliloquy

I really wanted to write this post like an essay, with a thesis supported by points, but every time I tried to do it like that, it came out wrong. This point is better explained as a journey of discovery - observations made, thoughts had, and revelations that made everything click into place. So, that's how we're doing it. Strap in, gang.

(Also, it should be noted, this is largely a cleaned-up and slightly-augmented transcription of a verbal spiel I went on the other day. It's not an exact one-to-one, but if anyone would prefer this in audio format, hit me up. And also this is gonna read like a stream-of-consciousness speech. Because it is. :P )

A bit of context just regarding me and where I'm coming from: The animated movie has been my favorite movie since 2010 when I first saw it. I can recite it almost from memory. I have seen the live-action movie twice (and I plan on seeing it as many more times as I can before it leaves theaters). Also I have ADHD.

ALSO ALSO. This is not about headcanoning either version of Hiccup as neurodivergent. This is about how Hiccup's experiences in the live-action HTTYD greatly resemble things that a lot of undiagnosed neurodivergent kids go through. He does not, himself, have to be neurodivergent for that to be the case (however, I totally believe that he is and I will pop off with the headcanons about it if anyone gives me attention and probably even if they don't :P). Alright. Here we go.

SO, watching the live-action movie, Hiccup felt different, obviously, in a lot of ways. And some of it was, at first, a little bit disappointing, I'm not gonna lie. Hiccup's snarkiness is sort of one of his defining features in a lot of ways, and since there was less of it, I was like, "oh, that's sad", you know? Even knowing that a lot of it was just Jay Baruchel improvising, so it's not like Mason Thames could have done it, 'cause it was somebody else's improv. Like, he got to keep in the "Thank you for nothing, you useless reptile" line, 'cause he suggested it, but like the "Excuse me, barmaid, I'm afraid you brought me the wrong offspring!!!" and all of that stuff, I'm pretty sure that was Jay improvising, so Mason didn't do it in this movie.

But, as I watched, even if it wasn't exactly the same Hiccup that I remembered, there was still a congruity to all of Mason's choices that made me love him just as much, and made me go "Oh, that's still Hiccup. Like, that's very Hiccup." And the point where I was like "Oh yeah, that's Hiccup! Definitely!" was sort of closer to the end. There was a confidence in the way he was speaking, and a charisma, and, you know, a sort of leaderly quality that I recognized from, honestly, not as much the first HTTYD, but from all of the later installments in the franchise, including the TV shows. And I remember the second time I watched the movie, noting a specific point, and going "Oh, wow, look at that! That's where it starts." There's a moment after Romantic Flight when Hiccup and Astrid are on Toothless, and she's like, "Oh, what are you gonna do? you have to kill [a dragon] tomorrow". And he replies something like "Well, you kind of blew our escape plan, so I'm gonna need a minute." And the way he said that, particularly the "I'm gonna need a minute" part, was so much more confident than he really said anything else up to that point (like, to another human being). There was an edge to his voice, not mean, not harsh, just firm, that hadn't been there before. And I was like "Oh, look at this confident boy, where did he come from?" And then I was like, "Oh, it's 'cause, you know, he's the one in control of the situation. He's on a dragon. And he knows that Astrid is now on his side, so he can have that confidence as he's speaking." And then, even later on, when Toothless wasn't there anymore and he was speaking to the rest of the teenagers [the scene as they're all about to head into the arena grab the dragons so they can go save help the adults], the confidence was back, the leaderly quality was back, all of that nonsense. And I was like, "Oh, it's because Astrid's on his side still, so he can carry the confidence off of the dragon." And I remember thinking that that's really weird and interesting. That's what makes this Hiccup different, in this movie, is that you actually see his confidence grow over the course of the movie, whereas animated Hiccup, he's confident [or at least visibly projecting an air of confidence, but I still think that more of it is true than just a projection] right from the beginning. And then I watched an interview with Mason Thames, who plays Hiccup (and Nico Parker who plays Astrid). And they were talking about differences between Jay Baruchel's performance and Mason's, and Mason says this:

"Me and Dean had a lot of time to talk about new things we wanted to explore, like a darker side of Hiccup, and sadder, lonelier side. Because, his whole village despises him. His father is not proud of him. And, you know, the amount of stress, and, kind of, what that would do to a kid, you know?"

And that made something click in my brain. The sadder, lonelier side is definitely visible in the way that Mason plays everything. And it makes sense. This Hiccup is a lot more...beaten down, I suppose, by the circumstances of his existence pre-Toothless. And so, then, watching that journey of him going from being very, very not confident, watching the confidence grow as he goes along in the movie, makes sense, because of how different he is in the beginning. There are other examples that I really, really like in terms of the acting choices that Mason made and other actors made that show it even more, that lonelier, sadder side of Hiccup. You might think, well, how does that even work? It's almost exactly the same script. How do they do that?

Hiccup is less snarky. That's just how it is. He's less snarky when he responds to people; he's less snarky with Gobber, which is very interesting. In the animated movie, Gobber snarks at Hiccup, Hiccup snarks right back. In live-action, Gobber's actually a lot more...gentle with him. He is, like, visibly saddened by a lot of Hiccup's behavioral responses to things. There's the part where Hiccup says "I just wanna be one of you guys" and then goes inside his house, leaving Gobber outside. And after Hiccup's closed the door, Gobber just says, very quietly and sadly to himself, "I know you do". It's very much like he can tell that Hiccup is internally beating himself up for not being like everybody else. The way that Hiccup interacts with people around him is a lot less confident and a lot more like...not nervous, but there's definitely something apologetic, like a "Oh, I'm so sorry. I know I suck, believe me, I know" underpinning his words. There's a part that he has, a new scene where he's talking to Astrid, that animated Hiccup does not have, where he says something like "You're the kid [my dad] always wanted. Instead he got stuck with all this." And it's all very "Yeah, I suck", and it's all played very sincere. And that's...not really an attitude that animated Hiccup ever had? Animated Hiccup knew what he was, knew what he was capable of, and knew how he could use that to be a Viking; to do all of the things that his dad and his village wanted him to do. They just wouldn't let him. Nobody would listen to him, and because it wasn't the way things were done, he couldn't do it.

But in all of that, narratively, that's a problem with society. That's not something wrong with Hiccup, and Hiccup did not act like there was something that wrong with him, you know? [To clarify what I meant by this; there's a difference between thinking that you're a square peg in a round hole, and thinking that you're a stripped screw. One just needs a different environment to flourish, the other is ultimately useless any way you slice it]. He was like, yeah, I know I'm small, but look at all this stuff I can do. I know it's not really a Viking way to do things, but like, it can be used to do Vikingy things. I could kill a dragon with this frickin like ballista or whatever. The bolas launcher.

That's animated Hiccup, and he's very different from live-action Hiccup. And animated Hiccup, as much as I love him, does not really allow for the same sort of reflection of a very neurodivergent experience as live-action Hiccup. Not that he doesn't at all. There is certainly an element of that, as there always is in stories where it's something about somebody being othered. And I mean, you know, you've also got Stoick saying that whole bit about like "from the time he was born, he's been different", "I take him fishing and he goes hunting for trolls", "he has the attention span of a sparrow", etc. and everybody points and goes "ADHD!" and, like...valid of them, but you know. It's different, obviously, saying "Oh, this seems like a character has ADHD" and "Oh, the thing that this character experiences in this movie is very, very reflective of the autistic or ADHD experience".

The thing that made it all click and made me go, "Oohhhhhh; that's why that makes sense", is that the thing that is making Hiccup so ✨different✨ changes from animated to live-action. That was explained in an interview with Dean DeBlois, who was the director of the original animated movie and also this live action one. And he said this:

"Hiccup was designed to be a pipsqueak in his world. And so, production design-wise, in the animated film, we made everything larger than life, you know. The buildings, the trees, the people. Everything just seemed to outsize little Hiccup. But, I think as we were narrowing in on our casting of Hiccup, and we realized, like, Mason, though he's 15, is not a pipsqueak. He's an average kid at 15. That meant we didn't have to lean into, as heavily, this idea that he's a tiny, a tiny kid in an oversized world. We, we leaned more into his otherness, like, he is a misfit. He doesn't follow the Viking creed. He's not- he's just always thinking differently, and therefore is treated as somebody who is very different."

And that is what makes live-action Hiccup representation of a neurodivergent experience in the way that animated Hiccup is not, and [knowing explicitly where the director was coming from] makes it very easy to read it in a lot of Mason's acting, too. Like, animated Hiccup is different because he's small. That's not something he can change; that's just how he is, and it's really, really annoying that his society doesn't like that, but it's also not something that he has any control over. So, naturally, he responds to all of the dislike and the derision and all that stuff with like "Ugh. Come on." Like, when somebody says, "Stop being all of this", and he says, "You just gestured to all of me", he sounds annoyed about it. He's like, "Really? Like, all? There's not one part of my body- Okay, sure. Fine. Whatever." Whereas, with Mason's Hiccup, whatever is wrong with him is not something that you can see, and it's not something that he thinks he can't change. If it's something in the way that he's thinking, and something in the way that he's responding to the world around him that's different than everybody else, then, naturally, the next step would be to think, "Oh, if it's all in my brain, I can fix that. I should be able to fix that". But he can't, and so he beats himself up, and that's, I think, why Gobber treats him the way that he does. He knows that Hiccup is beating himself up, because Hiccup knows that it's something internal, that he should be able to fix, but he can't. And that's why, you know, Hiccup lacks so much confidence in the beginning of the movie where animated Hiccup doesn't, is because he thinks that there's something wrong with him. Because he doesn't think like everybody else, and that's the part that's important to all the Vikings, and that's why they deride him so, is because he doesn't think like them as opposed to him just not looking like them or being as physically capable as them. And that is so, so, so, so much what it's like to be young and neurodivergent and not diagnosed.

And it's summed up really, really well at the end right as Hiccup gets on Toothless and they are about to go up to fight the Red Death and Stoick says "I'm proud to call you my son". Animated Hiccup says "Thanks, Dad", because animated Hiccup has always known who he was and what he was capable of. He just needed someone to hear him. Live-action Hiccup says, "That's all I need". And after taking a minute, too; like he, honestly, Mason's acting, 10 out of 10; he looks like he's about to start crying for a second. He has to, like, take a second so he doesn't cry, so his voice won't crack the second he opens his mouth, and then he says "That's all I need", because live-action Hiccup really needed to know from the people around him that they are proud of him. That he's not...there's not something wrong with him on the inside that means he's never going to be enough. And that is that is the autistic and/or ADHD experience.

That is pretty much the end of the original spiel. There's other stuff I could get into to further my assertions (a variety of body types present among the live-action Vikings hammering home the idea that Hiccup's biggest differences are all internal ones, Mason delivering the line "I'm really extra sure that I won't [kill dragons]" less like Jay's declaration and more like he's admitting to a personal failing being more evidence for the way live-action Hiccup views himself differently to his animated counterpart, etc.) but it's been about a week since I last saw the live-action movie and I don't want to make points based on faulty recollection.

I do want to add, though, that I know that my experiences as a child/teen with undiagnosed ADHD are in no way universal. There are probably a lot of people who responded completely differently than I did to everything, and people whose experiences look like animated Hiccup's, and in the grand scheme of things, these are variations of the exact same character and any experiences connected to one can very likely be read in the other.

But at the same time....

There's something that live-action Hiccup has that his animated counterpart doesn't, for me. I look at live-action Hiccup - his sadness, his shame & stress, his struggles to connect, his uncertainty, his self-reproach, his need for someone to be proud of him, his slowly-growing confidence as more and more people show that they value him as he is and not as he or they feel that he should be - and there's something that I recognize. I look at him, and I see myself.

Well, myself at his age, anyway. 12 years and one diagnosis later, I'd like to think that I'm a little more confident in myself and the way that I think. Doesn't stop me from tearing up every time someone says that they're proud of me, though. :P And to have an experience that's so familiar & difficult be so visible, and in the character who was already tied for my favorite fictional character of all time to boot. It means a lot.

So yeah. That's about all I've got. If you've made it this far, congratulations on being just as weird about HTTYD as I am. I hope you liked reading this. See you around!

19 notes · View notes

for-the-love-of-hijack · 8 days ago

Text

(Heads up on a bit of a long response!)

Honestly - it wasn't quite a beat for beat, and Dean Deblois (the OG director) said he didn't want it to be.

I remember when the first animated version came out, there were things from him online saying how the OG film was actually rushed - and they had to cut out a lot of what they wanted. We can kind of see tidbits of this as we watch the short movies, ROB/DOB/RTTE (side note but the lack of acknowledging this in the third movie is part of the reason it isn't my favourite) - but he said he was surprised that the film did as well as it did in the first place because of this (Of course it was amazing - and something something we are the hardest critic of our own art - but I digress).

No spoilers, but in the live action they developed the world of viking Lore a BIT more. They didn't have the exact lines (I literally memorized the og script) but they kept the core of what was so great about the animated film. Because they now knew where they would go in the sequels, they added in foreshadowing for characters and events that had yet to happen (which was really delightful to see!).

I think that it's important to remember that, like anything that is an adaptation, part of what makes a good one is understanding the medium (or platform) that it's on - and what they do best. When going from the CHILDRENS book to GENERAL AUDIENCE animated they removed talking to dragons in dragonese and tiny Toothless design because that would undermine the severity of the themes being developed based on preconceived bias or trope. Yet they added nods to him - with the original toothless found in the terrible terror feeding scene and they kept the sass he had in his well-known animated personality. When going from animated to live action, because it was now real people and places and style, they were able to further showcase how truly VIOLENT a dragon attack would be because it was now more realistic. In animated a lot of the emption was conveyed via the voice acting - and while I DID find myself looking for that via a lot of the characters in the live action (Gerard Butler excluded) - there were a lot of micro facial movements that Mason!Hiccup conveyed that are not possible via the original stylized animation. (And honestly? Helps further drive home the tension between him and his dad - not to mention the entire subtle thing with Snotlout and his dad)

I wouldn't even consider Jay!Hiccup or Mason!Hiccup the same - in the exact way I wouldn't consider the Book1!Hiccup and Jay!Hiccup the same. Yes they are the same character - but it's a different take on them that adds a little something every time. Jay adds a very specific snark and sarcasm that is unique to his acting style - while Mason adds an awkward anxious teen dynamic that is really coded to the current understanding of how teens are today. Heck - this even plays into the outcast dynamic with his peers even more. While Jay!Hiccup used saecasm as 'a way to cope with his situation' learning and growing, Mason!Hiccup comes across as 'a panicked oh god social situations' still learning and growing.

I'm not saying one is better than the other at all. After having HTTYD as a hyper fixation since it came out - I chose to go in expecting nothing from the live action because historically they had been cash grabs like you say. I will say that I was pleasantly surprised at a thoughtful adaptation that kept to core of the animated movie while also understanding it needed to make changes to keep the themes and take advantage a live action visual style can allow. And heck - I think I'll even watch it a few more times to see how many more things I can find that lovingly reference or foreshadow the pre-existing content we know and love.

Ive been seeing a lot of posts about how the "live action" httyd movie is actually really good because it's basically a one-for-one shot of the original minus some key scenes and "who cares if its a cash grab cuz I enjoyed it" and like. Correct me if im wrong but shouldn't we not support blatant cash grab remakes who prey on your feelings of nostalgia and make a lazy attempt to take your money? Didn't we condemn a lot of Disney remakes for being soulless rehashes of the original?

How to train your dragon is a beautiful movie and it deserves better than a pointless remake to take your money. You deserve better. Put yout dollar where your mouth is.

#httyd #httyd remake #how to train your dragon #how to train you dragon live action #my thoughts

2K notes · View notes