I watched the How to Train Your Dragon remake

The Problem with "Faithful" Remakes

Dean DeBlois's live-action adaptation of How to Train Your Dragon succeeds technically while failing conceptually. This is a film that mistakes fidelity for purpose, creating a nearly scene-for-scene remake that raises an uncomfortable question: why does this need to exist?

Technical Excellence, Creative Bankruptcy

The film's greatest achievement is also its most damning quality: it's extraordinarily faithful to the 2010 animated original. With a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes and over $635 million at the box office, the film has proven commercially viable. The CGI dragons are impressive, the performances—particularly Mason Thames as Hiccup and Gerard Butler reprising his role as Stoick—are earnest, and the flying sequences maintain their sense of wonder.

But technical proficiency cannot mask the fundamental issue: this remake adds almost nothing new to a story already perfectly told in animation. The film runs nearly 30 minutes longer than the original, yet that extra runtime amounts to little more than extended action sequences and a handful of additional dialogue exchanges. The only notable plot addition is a scene involving the village elder consulting bones to predict the future—a minor mystical flourish that barely registers.

The False Promise of Live-Action

The decision to remake How to Train Your Dragon in live-action reflects Hollywood's troubling assumption that animation is somehow lesser than "real" filmmaking. This remake relies just as heavily on computer-generated imagery as the original—Toothless and the other dragons are entirely digital creations. The only difference is that now they share the screen with flesh-and-blood actors rather than animated ones.

This transition from animation to live-action doesn't enhance the story; it actually diminishes it. The realistic aesthetic strips away some of the original's charm and whimsy, replacing stylized fantasy with a grittier tone that feels at odds with the film's ultimately hopeful message about overcoming prejudice and finding common ground. The visceral quality of live-action also makes the violence feel heavier, potentially less appropriate for younger viewers who would have handled the animated version just fine.

Cultural Stagnation and the Recycling Problem

Perhaps the most significant criticism of this remake is what it represents for cinema as a whole. By recycling the same story fifteen years later with minimal changes, studios send a clear message: they're more interested in exploiting proven intellectual property than investing in original storytelling or pushing creative boundaries.

This creates a cultural feedback loop where audiences are served warmed-over versions of stories they've already experienced. The deeper themes and political messages that make art meaningful grow stale when we're constantly revisiting the same narratives rather than exploring new ones. When studios can profit by reheating yesterday's leftovers, why would they take risks on fresh ideas?

Devaluing Animation Itself

The existence of this remake implicitly suggests that the animated original wasn't "real" enough, that it needed to be legitimized through live-action treatment. This is deeply disrespectful to animation as an art form—a medium with unique expressive capabilities that shouldn't be viewed as a mere stepping stone to live-action adaptations.

Animation allowed How to Train Your Dragon to create a stylized Viking world with exaggerated character designs and fantastical dragon species that felt cohesive and imaginative. The live-action version, constrained by the need for photorealism in its human actors, creates an awkward visual disconnect between the "real" people and the still-cartoonish dragons.

A Well-Executed Mistake

Credit where it's due: if you're going to make an unnecessary remake, this is how to do it competently. DeBlois clearly loves this story and treats it with respect. The cast is committed, the production values are high, and for audiences who've never seen the original, it's likely an enjoyable experience.

But competence doesn't equal necessity. A well-executed mistake is still a mistake. The 2010 animated film already exists and remains widely available. It hasn't aged poorly. It doesn't need updating or reimagining. This remake offers nothing that justifies asking audiences to spend another two hours watching the same story unfold in marginally different packaging.

Conclusion

How to Train Your Dragon (2025) is a technically impressive film that should never have been made. It's a monument to Hollywood's risk-averse approach to filmmaking, where studios would rather reliably monetize proven properties than gamble on original visions. The film's commercial success—becoming the highest-grossing entry in the franchise—only ensures we'll see more remakes like this, with studios already planning sequels and eyeing other animated classics for similar treatment.

The question isn't whether this remake is good—by most technical standards, it is. The question is whether "good enough" justifies the resources, talent, and cultural attention devoted to retelling stories we already know instead of creating new ones. In this case, the answer is a resounding no.

Rating: 6/10 – Competently crafted, emotionally sincere, and ultimately unnecessary.