Littlefoot lost his mother to a Sharptooth attack in the first movie. Considering that Sharpteeth were less liked by Leaf Eaters than different types of Leaf Eaters even, Littlefoot couldn’t have been too fond of them before the incident happened in the first movie.
In the second movie, when he comes back, realizing that Chomper wasn’t dangerous, yet, to attack him, why didn’t Littlefoot attempt to kill the baby Sharptooth rather than befriend him?
I mean, what if Chomper grew up to be WORSE than Sharptooth? Also, he even defends him when Chomper SHOWS signs of aggression by biting Cera in the tail, with the other four kids all against him and Chomper.
One could think that Littlefoot planned to raise Chomper to be nice so that other Longnecks like his mother wouldn’t be killed by him. However, there is one seemingly big flaw in that plan: Littlefoot let him go back with his parents. (Though maybe it wasn’t by choice.) That alone could have, and, from the first appearance of Chomper in V, seems that it nearly DID prove to be disastrous if getting him to be nice and save lives was his aim.
In short, I’m wondering, why didn’t Littlefoot decide to “save Longneck lives” by outright killing baby Chomper rather than trying to raise him to be nice and risking the chance that, not only could he kill Longnecks, but his knowledge of Leaf Eaters thanks to being in the Great Valley, etc, could make him a greater threat than he would have been had Littlefoot never even found him?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.