How Toothless evolved for the new ‘How to Train Your Dragon’: ‘We wanted him to feel like a big pet’
In a more casual and engaging way of expression: Whether flying high up in the clouds or playing around with his human buddy Hiccup, Toothless – the dragon with a kind-hearted look, a damaged tail, and a dark coloring – wins your heart effortlessly with his charming demeanor.
It’s not unexpected that he’s become the symbol of the “How to Train Your Dragon” animated films, with the initial movie launching in 2010. Since then, there have been two sequels, several TV series, and five short films. Toothless, a beloved character among Gen-Z audiences, is now back on the big screen in a more realistic version for the live-action remake, currently playing in cinemas.
In an unusual step, Dean DeBlois, who directed all three “Dragon” animated movies and also co-directed the 2002 original “Lilo & Stitch” with Chris Sanders, has been tasked with leading the live-action adaptation. His main focus is to maintain the core of Toothless’ character.
According to DeBlois over the phone, “He’s the most distinguishable dragon from our entire collection,” he notes. “He possesses a great deal of self-awareness and character, which is beautifully conveyed through his face, reminiscent of Stitch with its large eyes, ear plates, and wide mouth.
Essentially, the success of the whole live-action attempt relied upon effectively portraying Toothless as a lifelike dragon amidst human actors and real-life sets, all while maintaining the enchantment that characterized the animated films.
Christian Manz, the visual effects supervisor of the latest film, mentioned that Peter Cramer, president of Universal Pictures, initially had doubts about Toothless when he first considered the project in 2022. To him, a fantastical creature that effectively conveyed realism was the Hippogriff, a four-legged winged creature depicted in the 2004 movie “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” This creature served as his benchmark for success.
DreamWorks sought Framestore, a renowned British visual effects and computer animation studio, for a three-month project to make Toothless appear more realistic. Notable works by Framestore include the beloved Paddington Bear in the film series, Dobby from the “Harry Potter” universe, Groot from the Marvel movies, and Rocket Raccoon.
Manz clarifies over a video call from the U.K., stating that they never intended to find an actual dragon like those depicted in ‘Game of Thrones.'”
Or,
“Speaking via video call from the U.K., Manz emphasizes that their goal was not to discover a real-life version of the dragons portrayed on ‘Game of Thrones’.
Manz and his team at Framestore faced a challenge when designing Toothless, specifically focusing on his facial characteristics. Reducing the size of his eyes or mouth, or attempting to significantly alter his head shape for a more realistic look would diminish his unique personality.
DeBlois mentions that his character’s face, with eyes much larger than those found in any creature within the animal kingdom, even surpassing those of the blue whale, was essential to keep, as it seemed we would be presenting a diminished version of Toothless without them,” says DeBlois.
Movies
This summer appears robust, offering a variety of blockbuster hits (big Hollywood swings), intelligent independent productions (smart indie alternatives) along with some entertaining yet intellectually light fare (delicious-looking dumb). Such a mix is essential for any summer’s viewing diet.
The live performance titled “How to Train Your Dragon: Live Spectacular,” which debuted in 2012 and toured Australia and New Zealand, significantly altered its design, eliciting mixed reactions. According to Simon Otto, the head of character animation for all three animated movies, speaking via Zoom, Toothless appeared too creature-like and lacked the appeal and charm that made him endearing.
Although these differences might be hard for a casual observer to spot, several modifications have been incorporated in the live-action version of Toothless that distinguish it from its animated equivalent.
According to Manz, he deliberately altered the character’s features, making him less bulky with a reduced head size and eyes, in order to create a more lifelike, realistic appearance within the photograph.
DeBlois notes that when people watch the live-action film, they often comment, ‘Wow, it’s Toothless, just as he appears in the animated movie.’ However, upon closer comparison, there are several noticeable variations between them.
In order to make Toothless appear more realistically incorporated into the surroundings in the live-action adaptation, his physical texture had to be made more detailed and complex.
In the animated character, Manz notes that he appears quite sleek. They experimented with a skin texture similar to a snake’s, but it gave off an unwelcoming vibe. It wouldn’t feel inviting to touch his forehead.
In both instances of Toothless depicted on screen, the same digital method was employed – computer animation. However, the version intended to coexist with a physical world had specific aesthetic considerations due to its shared environment. While it may seem paradoxical to pursue realism in fantastical creatures, the aim is to make them feel tangible within their fictional universe.
DeBlois expresses his honest feelings about live-action remakes, stating that they often attempt to overshadow their animated originals. However, he clarifies that their aim was to develop a version which coexists with it, while staying true to the original story’s structure, but offering additional layers of complexity, an enriched mythology, and more engaging action sequences and flight scenes. Yet, they do not intend to replace the animated movie as DeBlois takes great pride in that film.
Originally, Toothless, as we’re familiar with him, was specifically created for the screen. In Cressida Cowell’s original book series, however, Toothless is small and green, which is reminiscent of the tiny dragon called Terrible Terror in the first animated movie.
However, upon joining the team 15 months prior to the 2010 launch, DeBlois and Sanders replaced the initial directors. Their significant alteration in this period involved transforming Toothless into a rideable dragon.
The initial inspiration for the appearance of Toothless in the animated movies came from a screensaver featuring a black panther. One of the designers most familiar with Toothless, Otto (who created the original design as far back as 2008), often reflects on his real-world animal references when thinking about the character’s design.
Otto describes the character as having characteristics reminiscent of a peregrine falcon, with sleek forms similar to a feline, yet possessing traits also found in a Mexican salamander known as an axolotl. The design for Disney’s popular character Stitch, specifically its large almond-shaped eyes, ears, and distinct mouth, has also played a role in shaping this design.
I can’t help but notice a hint of Stitch’s design aesthetic in Toothless’ visage, making them seem like long-lost relatives from afar, according to my perspective. (DeBlois)
It’s more memorable for him if Toothless is made to look more like a mammal instead of a reptile, and if he’s given characteristics that make him seem like a pet.
He shares, “We spent hours on YouTube watching videos of amusing pets, aiming to incorporate their antics into Toothless’s character. Our goal was for viewers to think, ‘My cat does that!’ or ‘My dog is like that too.’ We wanted Toothless to seem like a beloved pet – fierce and menacing initially, but eventually as soft and comforting as a big cuddly cat.
In the making of the live-action film, Toothless and the other dragons were portrayed as large, functional puppets, skillfully manipulated by a team of expert puppeteers, with Tom Wilton at their helm. He was a seasoned performer who had previously worked on the “War Horse” stage production.
Employing puppets served as a practical method for the cast, particularly Mason Thames (Hiccup), to work with a tangible on-set collaborator. Specifically, the Toothless foam puppet boasted an articulated jaw and ear plates, enabling a nuanced, interactive acting experience.
Manz states, “Dean has a production he can direct with Mason and the rest of the cast taking part, resulting in interactions that feel incredibly authentic.” He adds, “Though the puppets disappear from the scene eventually, it simply enhances the believability of the connection between them.
Regarding the thrilling aerial scenes featuring Hiccup and Toothless, they were skillfully brought to life by crafting a mechanical dragon attached to a large gimbal system capable of moving along six distinct axes, thus replicating the true-to-life sensation of flight.
According to DeBlois, if the dragon moved in various ways such as diving, climbing, or performing maneuvers like banking and rolling, Mason would experience the same turbulence a jockey on a racehorse might feel. This connection made him feel very genuine with the animal.
For all his success in the animated realm, DeBlois has never directed a live-action film until now.
As a movie enthusiast, I appreciate the confidence Universal placed in me, despite my lack of experience in live-action films. They saw the passion within me for capturing the essence and magic that movies embody, and I was eager to translate that onto the silver screen.
Otto, who was the first to train Toothless, openly admits that if he had known the sketches he made in 2008 would lead to a franchise and a theme park attraction (the replica of the films’ Isle of Berk, which opened at Universal Studios Florida earlier this year), he would have been so surprised that he might have “wet himself”.
In his words, the most essential decision they took for the live-action adaptation was ensuring the audience develops an affection for Toothless. He further explains that this choice aims to convey the idea that if you have a creature like Toothless as your companion, you wouldn’t consider giving it up.
Read More
2025-06-14 16:31