Shaunasy Pashby

By Shaunasy Pashby of The Pathfinder

September 7, 2025

     Lets talk for just a second about live action remakes. It seems like a lot of movies in recent years are remakes of beloved childhood favorites. From Mulan and Little Mermaid to the new Lilo and Stitch and the topic of this review: How to Train Your Dragon. Whether you did or didn’t like the Disney remakes, one thing is for sure. They are not really the same movie as their animated counterpart we all watched in our childhood. It's difficult to see with any kind of certainty if that makes them better or worse– though many people would argue the latter. It is hard to live up to the legacy the original films left. 

     The best analogy I have heard for these adaptations is that they are not new movies, they are cosplays. As many people in today's age are familiar, cosplays are when a person dresses up as a character from a game, movie, book, or other piece of fiction. While there are some amazing cosplays out there, and some that live a lot to desire, they can never be the thing they imitate. These movies very much do the same. They are imitations of the originals, some good, some bad but at the end of the day they are still movies wearing other movies as a costume. 

     Which brings us to the new How To Train Your Dragon. On June 13 of this year the movie hit theaters barely more than 15 years after its animated original from DreamWorks. The live-action How to Train Your Dragon sticks closely to the original plot that fans know and love: a young Viking named Hiccup, who befriends the last of a fierce dragon species, Toothless, and ultimately learns to lead his people by bridging the gap between dragons and humans. Both movies are directed by Dean DeBlois and even share many of the same cast members. DreamWorks promised a “shot for shot remake” and for the most part they really delivered. The essence of the story translated well from animation to live action and the same scenes helped bring back the feelings as if watching the original. 

     Now, as stated before, this is a cosplay, which means there were some changes. While 90

 percent of the movie was frame to frame, shot to shot the same, there was two scenes that didn't make the cut. Firstly, and I apologize for the spoilers, there is no more dragon nip. In the original Toothless crash-lands into a field of tall grass where he rolls in it and generally does cat like things, Hiccup later uses a handful of this plant to subdue a Groncle. The live action took fan suggestions that dragons are not cats and changed the plants to dandelions, causing dragons to sneeze vigorously and become incapacitated. While this was a subtle change it held a little bit different weight. Secondly, and with far more weight, there is no Terrible Terror scene. The scene when Toothless and Hiccup are watching the sunset and a Terrible Terror tries to steal food resulting in the epiphany that dragons “are not so fireproof on the inside” never happens. This has an impact being removed and breaks the foreshadowing of the movie's finale. There were also a few small things added, for example, we see a relationship between Snoutlout and his father that we never had previously. I personally liked the added dynamic. 

     As far as actors go, I have heard a lot of complaints about Astrid’s character being played by Nico Parker among complaints about the twins not being twins. To that I have two points. First, they are not twins and the jokes they make did not land well because of it. I agree, it was not great. The complaints about Nico Parker, I find a harder time with. The biggest issue people have is that she is not the blonde-hair-blue-eyed Viking we all know. I have heard countless statements that Vikings are supposed to look like that and that she should not be playing one because she doesn’t. To this I raise: Hiccup is not blonde, neither is Snotlout, or many other characters in the animated film and Vikings are explorers. Vikings historically are defined as seafaring and mismatched groups. In the live action movie Stoic clears this up as well, he rallies his people for one last voyage but pointing out where they came from, “We are all descendants of the greatest dragon fighters from everywhere Vikings ever traveled.” He calls out specific examples from the crowd as well and really clears up what many call “forced diversity” in the film. For Nico Parker to play Astrid worked because the story supported it. 

     I would argue Nico Parker made an awesome Astrid and stuck well to her role. Similarly we saw Gerard Butler, the original Voice Actor for Stoic return. Many of the other actors were new and people, including myself, had mixed feelings. Some good, some that didn’t seem to quite match the characters we all loved. It was new, a little different, but still worth the watch. 

    Finally, the CGI. Let's be real, CGI is insane, but dragons insane? While it was very good, many of the dragon designs worked wonders and made the dragons come to life, it was CGI. Which means it had a potential for holes. There were three scenes I could count while watching where a CGI creature moved through a real structure or person. All three were microseconds you could have missed where a wingtip slipped through someone's arm or similar but they were still there. Could this have been fixed? I honestly don’t know, I am not a CGI expert by any means. 

    Overall, the movie was great. I think it was absolutely worth watching and would recommend seeing it. Just keep in mind, its a cosplay, it will never be the original perfectly. With the announcement of Hidden World coming out in 2027 I am excited to see what improvements they make and feel a How To Train Your Dragon marathon coming up. 

By Shaunasy Pashby of The Pathfinder

September 7, 2025

     Jurassic Park premiered on June 9, 1993, and rapidly became a fan favorite. It’s still in the top 100 most popular movies according to IMDb and boasts a solid 91% score on Rotten Tomatoes. While the animatronics left a little to be desired and the plot definitely strayed from Michael Crichton’s novel, it was still a solid movie.

     Since then, six more films have been released, along with a whole slew of non-movie canon. The special effects and animatronics have generally improved with each installment—or at least trended upward. The first three movies followed a clear concept and direction, but by the third Jurassic Park movie, the plot was already becoming predictable. The second movie’s Rotten Tomatoes score dropped to 52%, and the third fell further to 49%. It felt like the right time to wrap things up.

     Then came Jurassic World in July 2015. Personally, I liked this one. It felt like a revival of the old story, with some great callbacks to the original trilogy and enough new twists to keep things interesting. The effects were leagues ahead of the '90s—goodbye retro animatronics, hello 21st-century CGI! It honestly would’ve been a satisfying place to end the story again.

     Of course, that didn’t happen.

     The fifth and sixth movies continued to stretch the storyline. While they introduced some new concepts, they featured fewer and fewer actual dinosaurs, and the plot got increasingly far from what made the originals compelling. Throw in the other canon material—books, TV shows, shorts, and even four in-universe websites—and the franchise now includes over 20 pieces of content.

      Which brings us to the latest film: Jurassic World Rebirth.

     I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, it’s a cool movie. It introduces some new characters that I personally think are great additions—Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali, and Jonathan Bailey all give strong performances. In some ways, their characters mirror the original trio, giving a sense of return to the roots of the franchise. It’s also worth noting that this movie lands 32 years after the original film, and 35 years after the book that started it all. With that much time passed, the animatronics are hyper-realistic, and our understanding of dinosaurs has come a long way. That translates to better dinos and more believable action. Visually, it’s impressive.

     So what’s the downside? Why did this movie only land a 52% on Rotten Tomatoes, and why are so many fans upset?

     I think it comes down to three major issues:

     1. The Civilians

     There’s a group of civilians in the film who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. While they offer a way to explore more of the island and interact with more dinosaurs, they don’t really add to the story. Instead, they end up distracting from the main characters and the core mission. Their screen time feels excessive, and it pulls attention away from what really matters.

     2. Too Many Callbacks

     While I love the occasional nod to earlier films or the original book, Rebirth is full of them. Almost every scene seems to be a direct reference to something we’ve already seen—just with different characters or slightly altered circumstances. This made the movie feel predictable and, at times, more like fan fiction or a parody than an original addition to the series.

     3. Franchise Overload

     Let’s be honest: there are a lot of these movies now. I’ve heard people joke that Jurassic Park is going the way of Fast & Furious—a franchise that just keeps going, with increasingly unbelievable plotlines, all in the name of keeping the brand alive. I worry that Jurassic Park is already there. Instead of creating a meaningful continuation, it’s starting to feel like the story is being stretched thin for the sake of profits.

     Overall, Jurassic World Rebirth is a good watch. It has cool effects, some exciting new dinosaurs, and a strong cast. But it’s also another Jurassic Park movie—and from a story and originality standpoint, it’s a bit lacking. If you’re a longtime fan or just love dinosaurs, you’ll probably still enjoy it. But if you're hoping for something fresh or groundbreaking, you might walk away feeling a little let down.