I should assume that literature and film is a natural marriage and sometimes it would be shotgun wedding. It’s because film is more commercial than novel. So the director or producer has to composing about the story and plot. Not only plot but also the character must be commercial enough to be watched. This occurred to ones character of the adaptation animation film that was directed by Dean De Blois and Chris Sanders with titled How To train Your Dragon I.
How to Train Your Dragon is animation adaptation film from the first of serials novel with the same titled by Cressida Cowell on 2003. Actually, How to Train Your Dragon movie is worked by Dreamworks and directed by Dean De Blois and Chris Sanders which released on 2010. As we knew about adaptation film we’ll find the differences about both of them. One of them occured to the main character of the story, he is Hiccup Horendus Huddock III.
There is some differences from Hiccup, I argue that Hiccup in the film is more commercial than novel. Especially, as the physical I can imagine that Hiccup in novel version is someone who has small body and his face is full of acnes like Cowell imagined at the illustration of the novel Hiccup is weirdo. Whereas in film I claimed that Hiccup has good looking even his body is small than the other. Hiccup also has the same posture with Astrid ( The addition girl character in the film whose didn’t exist in the novel version). It meant that main character must be commercial, because almost people want and expected the main character as someone who has good looking character.
Besides physic, there is some differences about the characterization. In the story Hiccup is a Viking who different from others. His dad is a leader of Viking who has huge body, tall, and long-whiskered. Hiccup is an heir, the candidate of the next leader. But there is something different from Hiccup, he didn’t like his father. His body is too small to be a leader, he is also regarded as a loser by his friends. Many Viking says, he is not appropriate to be a leader.
Hiccup as the main character in this story has his own way to be an hero. In novel version Hiccup is someone who has no ambition in his life, he is described as a coward and useless.  “ kalian mungkin sekarang sudah menebak bahwa Hiccup tidak terlahir sebagai seorang pahlawan sejati..” “Kalian tidak akan pernah memilih Hiccup dari kesepuluh anak laki-laki itu untuk menjadi pahlawan dalam cerita ini” (Cressida Cowell: 15).
I assumed that Cowell tries to deliver to us about ‘ to be an hero we can start it with the zero’. Even in film version the director also  wanted to delivered the message like Cowell did, actually he have his own way to imagined Hiccup. Hiccup character in film version has almost the same physical characteristics with the novel (even in the film version Hiccup is more commercial) but not mentally. In movie Hiccup seems as ambitious person. He is smart but he was underestimated by his friends because his body is too small as the Viking. As the excerpt of the script “ owh, their jobs so much cooler.” “ oh come on,let me out please I need to make my marked” “ please, two minute I’ll kill the dragon my life will get infenitely better I might even get a date:”
At those excerption of the script, I argues that Hiccup in movie version is more brave than in novel version. At the beginning I can feel that Hiccup really wanted to be a hero, he bored about his safe zone, it’s different from the novel Hiccup’s character seem like a loser.
In Cowell’s Hiccup is someone really nerd because he can speak Dragonese. He used to hide his ability in order to not get the nerd reputated by his friends. Actually he was looser even he was kind. In film version Hiccup found Toothless ( Night Fury Dragon) and adopted him. Hiccup as someone who has ambitious character changing into charitable because acquainted by Toothless.
Toothless in both version are also different. I revealed that Toothless is the symbol of Hiccup bravery. In book version Toothless is only Garden Dragon which has brown colour and toothless. Whereas in the film version Toothless is more powerful, he has black colour and named as Night Fury ( The most dangerous dragon in Viking). I concluded that Hiccup in film is more competent because he has the wild dragon. In the film Toothless also more commercial with his cute face.
“ Despite his physical shortcomings, Hiccup does his best to succeed as a Viking. He is smart and is constantly creating inventions for various uses throughout the film, including a bola sling, a prosthetic tail, a saddle, and a riding vest. At first, however, Hiccup is almost obsessed with proving himself to the rest of his tribe; he often doesn’t think things through and is more determined to gain the recognition of his peers than he is heedful of others’ orders, often causing problems for the rest of the tribe, and himself. Despite this, Hiccup shows great aptitude at being a leader and a strategist: he leads his Dragon Training classmates into battle, using his friends’ strengths wisely in the battle against the Red Death. Hiccup also has very good observational skills which come in handy during his time with Toothless and during Dragon Training. For example, he’s able to hypothesize that Dragons have a natural disdain for eel when his own Dragon companion refuses to eat one himself, and uses this to successfully drive back a Hideous Zippleback later.” (Wiki.2010)
But in the conflict Hiccup become awkward person, he was not too confident by his dad. Actually in the novel his dad named Stoick the Vast is a gentle dad he really loved Hiccup. Slightly different from film version Stoick is really feel embarrased about Hiccup.
The climax of the film is similar, Hiccup has to marked himself as hero by defeating the huge dragon. Even, the the resolution is different. Hiccup in novel version can speak Dragonese and acquired to have a dreaded dragon but actually he just get the garden dragon named toothles. Whereas in film version Hiccup knew how to train the dragon with make a friend with dragon named Toothless which is really dreaded by Viking, hi genus is Night Fury, different from the book. He knew to paralyzed the dragon with teached Toothless, in novel version he paralyzed the dragon with speak dragonese.
Bogs (2008) revealed that some film makers seem to assume that very few filmgoers wil know the novel. These filmmakers disregard the basic spirit of the novel inadapting it to film, thus destroying the film completely forthose amiliar with the book. In such cases, the film must be judged as a completely distinct work of art… Ironically, a loose adaptation may seem a better film to those who are not familiar with tl1e novel than to those who have read and loved it. Thus, a viewer who read the book before seeing the film may have a distinct advantage when the film depends on the viewer’s knowledge of the book. As Cowell said in the interview
Actually, if we watch the film version first. We feel didn’t need to watch the book because, actually in this film has the difference version as the new story. Even, this movie is animation adaptation. Dreamworks remark the story with commercial side. But I assumed that this film is also has the allure more than the book. As Cowell said that “I think it changes the theme particularly. The themes are very much in the same territory, but I have to say, my feeling going into the whole thing, and still now, is that films and books are very different mediums. I can only speak for myself, I suppose, and the way that I approach it, which is I don’t think for a film, even when I go see a film (let alone have my own book developed into a film), I don’t go seeking for it to be exactly the same as the book. I look for it to be a wonderful movie. And that is the criteria by which I judge a film.” ( Cowell)
To those convinced that novels and movies are mutually exclusive endeavours, each with its own incontestably unique properties and effects, it is useful to remember that the modern novel actually anticipated many effects and storytelling techniques, like temporal, causal, and spatial disjunctions, that we are all too accustomed—sometimes erroneously—to regard as essentially “cinematic.” ( Tibbets: xvi)
I concluded that novel and film has unique things that filled each other. Film has cinematography which focused on effect and animation in order to make the story more realistic. Actually, novel can make the reader to put their perception about the story. Compared that in How to Train Your Dragon in both version have the powerful story. In novel we found the zero to hero besides, in film we found Hiccup-Toothless friendship.
The ending of film version has the powerfull feeling. Actually, in the novel is also make us affected about the story. But but the incident when Hiccup must accept the fact that his leg amputated due to sacrifices for the many people is the best scene. Besides he must accepted that his legs got amputated, the friendship between Toothless and Hiccup is really intimated.
The film , by arranging external sign for our visual perception, or by presenting us with dialogue, can lead us to infer thought. But it cannot show us thought directly. It can show us characters thinking, feeling and speaking but it cannot show us their thoughts and feelings. A film is not thought ; it is perceived. ( George Blustone : 1956).
We can’t pick which is best or better on these same story because, the media is different. The story is appropriate with the requirement. In the novel Hiccup is one person who really zero to be hero, the story is also told about friendship. In the movie Hiccup is one person who really brave to give his sacrifice to Viking. But the similar thing about Hiccup is the gentle and kind boy. He really loved friendship and Toothless.
Besides the differences of characteristic of Hiccup. In the film we can find the romance between Hiccup and the main girl character named Astrid. Of, course in the novel we would not found her, because Astrid is the addition character that is made by Dreamworks. Astrid came to balance Hiccup character. Maybe, Astrid is commercial character in order to make the story more dramatic and romantic.
If we compared both of them, actually film version is more complicated then the novel. The story of the novel is simple and appropriate to read by kids. In the book is also added the ilustration and the interesting notes. Whereas in film version the complexity make adults wants to watch this animation film. Actually, IMDb surveyed that this film get the gratify rating with 8,2.

Cowell, Cressida. How To Train Your Dragon. Trans. Mutiara Dharma, 2010. Bandung: Mizan. print
Bogs, Joseph M and Denis W Petrie. The Art of Watching Film, 2008.Lisa Moore: New York
Blustone, George .Novels into Film, 1965. University Of California: Los Angeles. Print.
Wiki. Hiccup Horrendus Haddock III, 2010.web. 31 May, 2014. http://howtotrainyourdragon.wikia.com/wiki/Hiccup_Horrendous_Haddock_III
How To Train Your Dragon. Dir. Dean De Blois; Chris Sanders. Perf. Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Christopher Mintz-Plasse. DreamWorks, 2010.dvd
IMDb. How To Train Your Dragon.2010. web. 1 June 2014. http://www.imdb.com
Tibbets, John C; James M Welsh. The Encyclopedia of Novels into Films: Second Edition. 2005. New York : Facts on File. Print.

Single Post Navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: