How to Train Your Dragon: We can get one good live-action adaptation. As a treat

Jackson Weaver · CBC News

· Posted: Jun 11, 2025 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 10 minutes ago

There are morganatic reasons to remake a movie.

There are the remakes of old, unnoticed hidden gems — similar 1999's Scarface oregon 2021's West Side Story — reinterpreted for modern audiences. There are the re-imaginings of non-English-language fare that, as successful Martin Scorsese's The Departed, inactive find thing caller to say. And then, determination are remakes like O Brother Where Art Thou: wild retellings truthful cavalier and intentionally uninformed, they tin hardly beryllium counted arsenic remakes astatine all.  

The results, whether bully oregon bad, typically deterioration that originality connected their sleeves. 

But this week's large caller merchandise — How to Train Your Dragon — initially seems more like emblematic nostalgia bait than something remade for immoderate legitimate reason.

At least, that is, earlier you ticker it.

WATCH | How to Train Your Dragon trailer: 

Granted, the Dreamworks revisit of the 2010 animated classical hews peculiarly adjacent to the original: It inactive follows a Viking teen, Hiccup, uncovering the secretly benignant bosom of the mythical beasts his brethren person been slaughtering for centuries. It adjacent features immoderate of the aforesaid formed (Gerard Butler returns arsenic Hiccup's father, Stoick) and unit (composer John Powell and Canadian writer-director Dean DeBlois).

But, 1 would wonder, doesn't it inactive person the same acold beating bosom of all remakes of its type? And wouldn't it beryllium doomed to the aforesaid fate? Soulless and mean astatine champion — plainly boring astatine worst — many remakes simultaneously insult the mean of animation, portion besides exposing the often horrifying realities of rendering cartoonish gags photo-realistically.

Any yet, this time, 1 is left wondering thing else: How did the caller How to Train Your Dragon end up sort of … really good?

WATCH | DeBlois on live-action adaptations: 

Avoiding the missing soul

This is an uncomfortable admittance for idiosyncratic who can't halt complaining astir the destructive neo-tradition of remaking cartoons arsenic unrecorded action. But the archetypal crushed this movie works whitethorn beryllium that its manager felt the same: In an interrogation with CBC News, DeBlois was speedy to constituent retired his ain antipathy toward live-action remakes of animated movies — however "they often miss the soul."

To debar that, his strategy was to present what's astir a shot-for-shot remake. We are treated to a revisit truthful slavishly faithful that moments arsenic tiny arsenic Stoick brushing a burning ember from his cloak are recreated. 

Hiccup, this clip played by The Black Phone's Mason Thames, channels Jay Baruchel's Chandler-esque patter to an astir uncanny degree, portion cannily seeding successful virtually each the aforesaid jokes. And adjacent Toothless — the catlike "Night Fury" dragon that Hiccup befriends and yet chaotically defends against ignorant humans, Free Willy-style — looks virtually ported implicit from the 2010 version. 

And speech from mildly reduced expressive capabilities, that makes sense. The original's already digitally rendered, video-game-like dragons are much oregon little indistinguishable erstwhile CGI-ed into our live-action Viking paradise, portion DeBlois years agone told the New York Times he aimed to ape real-world cinematography with these films.

Thumpy realism

That imaginativeness lends itself to the constricted benefits 2025's mentation person implicit 2010's: The action-first acceptable pieces deed harder erstwhile they're flying done the hauntingly beauteous stone spires of the Faroe Islands. And some chases and fiery fights battalion an other oomph erstwhile fixed the thumpy realism of, well, reality. 

It each culminates successful a last brag conflict that efficaciously makes a lawsuit for the remainder of the movie. Those with megalophobia, look out: Our mommy dragon present looks and feels miles much gargantuan than the original's comparatively puny queen.

But extracurricular that hyper-specific improvement, it's besides existent this update does thing amended than the original. The fewer additions and changes are either excessively tiny to attraction about or excessively tiny to justify.

WATCH | DeBlois connected uncovering their cleanable Hiccup: 

While immoderate broadside characters are fixed somewhat much backstory, it's dispersed acold excessively wide — and thinly — to bash thing other than amusement however a little faithful reproduction could person really recovered much opportunities to amended itself. There's the now-ethnically divers Viking people — proudly highlighted successful Stoick's opening monologue, past unceremoniously shunted disconnected into the background, ne'er to beryllium reintroduced oregon talked astir again.

Or the shrunken romantic subplot betwixt Hiccup and Astrid (Nico Parker) — ostensibly changed to give country for her quality to grow, only for it to get clumsily reintroduced close astatine the end. 

Or how Snotlout (Gabriel Howell) present has a crushed for his bullying: He's trying to gain his father's affection and pride. You'd presume this would pb to a climactic, character-driven infinitesimal wherever helium earns his father's adulation, alternatively of fundamentally stumbling into a mostly off-screen blessed ending. 

Unfortunately, you'd beryllium wrong. 

Less magic to miss

Admittedly, these are insignificant complaints for a children's movie that already operates leagues supra its low-effort (are you paying attention, A Minecraft Movie?) modern fare. But it doesn't rather reply the question: Why does a movie that's already successful English — and whose astir caller sequel came retired conscionable implicit 5 years agone — request a remake that does virtually thing to reinterpret the original?

There are assorted imaginable excuses. DeBlois's passionateness for the communicative is intelligibly evident. There's the improved enactment successful an already action-oriented film, and we tin forgive the comparatively insignificant missteps successful between. 

But maybe, it's besides thing a tad much pessimistic. Because arsenic Pixar's 3D benignant has travel to dominate so successfully implicit dust-binned 2D, we person present reached the constituent wherever our animated remakes person exhausted timeless IP like The Jungle Book and Snow White, and indispensable present draw from a decennary wherever animated films were virtually indistinguishable from high-budget video-game chopped scenes. 

So, arsenic capable and breathtaking arsenic How to Train Your Dragon is, possibly its passing people doesn't travel from thing other it offers. Maybe, there's conscionable little magic to lose.