PDA

View Full Version : The Blade films (Hey, vampires are living dead)



EvilNed
22-Apr-2006, 04:32 PM
I just rewatched Blade 1 and 2 and it strikes me how different they are. Even the main character Blade is different. As are the vampires!

In the first film, Blade was more of an animal. He sliced up and ****ed up anyone he could to get to his goal. Heck, he even considered letting that asian kid die just so he could kill Deacon Frost. In the second film, he was more of a show-off. Remember that film "White men can't jump" when Woodie Harrelson kept complaining about how Wesley Snipes would rather look good than win the game? Well, that's how it is in Blade 2. Blade would rather look good than actually do anything. He constantly does a bunch of fancy moves with his sword, even when nobody is watching! Why the heck did he do that?

The vampires in both films are also different. In the first film, they are much tougher to kill. You have to shoot them in the heart or brain with a silver bullet or they'd just feel pain. In the second film this is disregarded completly: Blade shoots several vampires through the stomach and they die instantly. It's like instant contact with silver will kill them.

Overall, I consider Stephen Norrington, the guy who did the first film, to be somewhat of an action genius. Most people might think The Matrix was the first film to introduce slow motion bullets and quick, slick karate action to Hollywood but Blade all that and came several years before The Matrix did. Blade 2 took everything Norrington did and stomped on it. Bullettime is used in most every scene, the action scenes consist of a bunch of quick close ups so you never really get what's going on (Much like those new Star Wars films). There's more action, but it's definetly not on par with the one in the first film.

Also, the film is ****ing filled with stupid plotholes. In the end Whistler knocks out a vampire, one of the main vampires actually, and then... what does he do? He crawls down the ventilation... With a silver sword. Whistler, hello, you could have killed that guy right there with no hassle whatsoever and you would have saved Blade a ****load of trouble! I mean, even Kris Kristofferson must have thought that was stupid becuase it's so plain obvious.

I just can't get over how bad Blade 2 is, when Blade 1 was pretty damn good. It was slick, stylish, it had character and Wesley Snipes was cool. Blade 2 is one big action train, just like Star Wars Episode 3, and one other thing it shares with that film is that the action sucks. They also turned Blade 2 into some kind of MTV generation action flick for people with no attention span. The character Scud? So annoying, going around tossing around rap slang names. "Hey B?" "Hey W?". Why not just say BLADE and WHISTLER, idiot? Also quit the smoking. Watching him smoke is just as annoying as watching Lars Ulrich chew gum (Which he does all the time). Blade 1 was much more mature and didn't feature any hip rap music whenever the main characters walked down the street in slow motion. What's the deal with combining rap music with kung fu anyway?

Guillermo Del Toro is a big douchebag. I'm never going to watch Hellboy.


Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. I haven't seen Blade 3 yet, but since it stars Ryan Reynolds and Triple H I think I'll steer clear of it.

erisi236
22-Apr-2006, 04:43 PM
alls I can say is that fight at the end of Blade 2 is the ****! :cool:

it's really good as well :lol:

AcesandEights
22-Apr-2006, 07:26 PM
Yup. The First Blade film was ****e. The seoond however was quite a fun little watch. I couldn't help but equate the Vamp society in that film with the WoD, which isn't a bad thing at all, especially compared to the first flick.

The third movie only had one good thing going for it, or maybe two...

EvilNed
22-Apr-2006, 08:03 PM
I much preferred the vampire society in the first film, where they were sophisticated elders and whatnot and their little "vampire board room". In the second film they walked around with medieval costumes and had huge vampire headquarters that just made you go "What the hell?". Basicly, I think everything in Blade 2 was overdone to the extreme, even the vampire lairs.

glsjaw
22-Apr-2006, 10:50 PM
personally i like the Comic alot better than the movies, but for being hollywood the movies are a good time

p2501
22-Apr-2006, 11:32 PM
skip Blade three then, it's ass.


Personally i like the character variance between 1 and 2, they stand as what i consider seperate opinions of the same character.

Eyebiter
22-Apr-2006, 11:44 PM
Blade 3 is one of the few films I've gotten up and walked out of the theater.

BTW: how many times did they kill off Kris Kristofferson in those movies?

p2501
23-Apr-2006, 12:08 AM
atleast 7 times.

Danny
23-Apr-2006, 03:38 AM
i didnt like the blade films, in my opinion vampires have just been done to death... or undeath , whatever, and zombie films are headed the same way.

EvilNed
23-Apr-2006, 01:48 PM
Nowadays, it's you can expect any vampire film that comes out to not follow the old traditional rules. I wonder when they'll make a vampire film that DOES follow the rules?

Eyebiter
23-Apr-2006, 05:31 PM
What the vampire genre needs is a film to shake things up.

One could argue 28 Days Later brought the zombie films back a few years ago. Dog Soldiers did the same thing for werewolf movies.

DjfunkmasterG
23-Apr-2006, 05:38 PM
If the movie 30 days of night... Comes off nearly as good as the comic... I think the Vampire genre will spring back to life.

What the genre needs is a good swift kick in the ass.

The Vampire genre needs its own 28 days later

Danny
23-Apr-2006, 11:27 PM
id like top see a film or hbo series based on the vampire comics sea of red, vampirates, now thats awesome.:lol:

Hawkboy
23-Apr-2006, 11:58 PM
Thought Blade was a fantastic movie, Blade II was fun, as for Blade III......... well, I had fun looking at Jessica Biel's body but that was it.

Interested to see what the TV show will be like. Hopefully they borrow a bit more from the Tomb of Dracula comics that started Blade.

EvilNed
24-Apr-2006, 12:26 AM
I'm watching the Blade 2 documentary right now, and what is funny is how both Guillermo Del Toro and David Goyer seem to think they've created some kind of masterpiece. David Goyer keeps saying "Blade was good, but this one is even better!". Most would agree it's the other way around, you big dildo!

And then he goes on saying "This film is really scary." Blade 2? Blade 2 is probably the least scary of all the films in my collection, counting Battlefield Earth (cause that **** was scary!). How is an action flick in any way scary? You KNOW what the monster is, and you KNOW Blade is going to kill thousands of them before the scene is over! You can't combine quick, slick martial arts action and horror and stick to the very traditional action films clichés. A scene in the sewers does not make a film scary. Die Hard 1 and 2 took place mostly at night, are they scary? No.

Whistler
02-May-2006, 12:24 PM
Also, the film is ****ing filled with stupid plotholes. In the end Whistler knocks out a vampire, one of the main vampires actually, and then... what does he do? He crawls down the ventilation... With a silver sword. Whistler, hello, you could have killed that guy right there with no hassle whatsoever and you would have saved Blade a ****load of trouble!


Yeah, yeah, yeah! Quit reminding me! Geez... :confused:

EvilNed
02-May-2006, 04:51 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah! Quit reminding me! Geez... :confused:

Haha, priceless. :D

Tullaryx
02-May-2006, 05:15 PM
I thought Del Toro's sequel was a better film overall. Yes it was over the top and you had quite abit of by-the-numbers cliche scenes. Del Toro and Goyer said it themselves in the documentary: its a comic book movie. Some of the scenes looked like moving panels from a comic book. Even some of the poses and stances that Blade did in the film looked like your typical comic book super-hero pose.

I would agree that it wasn't scary, but Del Toro sure knows how to make things grotesque. I actually thought the Reaper-vampire strain was a nice twist. Again, its something that one can see being done and used in Marvel Comics to start off a new story-arc. Even the Bloodpack was something a comic book fan wouldn't find out of place. If I had any beef with the film it was that they didn't use Donnie Yen enough.

EvilNed
02-May-2006, 05:27 PM
This is that just because comics are nice, doesn't mean they translate well onto the big screen. Blade 2 is a prime example of how to do things the wrong way.

Tullaryx
02-May-2006, 06:12 PM
This is that just because comics are nice, doesn't mean they translate well onto the big screen. Blade 2 is a prime example of how to do things the wrong way.

I think you misunderstand me. I like the fact that they made the sequel with a comic book feel and look to it. I really don't see Blade II, or any of the films in the trilogy, as horror. To me they're more action-films with horror aspects to them. Plus, Blade II seemed to be the film in the triogy that actually seemed like everyone involved was having fun.

EvilNed
02-May-2006, 07:09 PM
I think Guillermo was having fun, and as was Wesley. But that doesn't make it a good film, I find it so lacking on many cinematic levels. The screenplay was ludicrous and the way they tried to copy comic book production art was laughable. Also, the Mortal Kombat fighting scene was the worst I've ever seen. Not even George Lucas could have done it worse.

The rest of the cast was pretty crappy, except for Ron Pearlman (who didn't do much anyway) and Kristofferson.

Tullaryx
03-May-2006, 09:21 PM
I think Guillermo was having fun, and as was Wesley. But that doesn't make it a good film, I find it so lacking on many cinematic levels. The screenplay was ludicrous and the way they tried to copy comic book production art was laughable. Also, the Mortal Kombat fighting scene was the worst I've ever seen. Not even George Lucas could have done it worse.

The rest of the cast was pretty crappy, except for Ron Pearlman (who didn't do much anyway) and Kristofferson.

Ahh, well Del Toro and company didn't have ILM to lean on like Lucas does. :)

But what you thought was bad I thought was pulled off well. I think you might be mistaking the over-the-top production of the film for it being bad. But again you're points might have some merit, but I could probably find others who would disagree. As for copying comic book porduction art... they weren't. All I said and has been said in the supplemental extras by Del Toro was giving the film a comic book feel to it. A sort of hyperreal sensibility that the first touched on but didn't take far enough.

EvilNed
03-May-2006, 10:00 PM
The Production Design is definetly to comic book inspired, as I'm sure all aspects of the film are. I just can't take a film that's so silly seriously, nor be excited by it's one dimensional characters who duke it out in some of the most heavily CGIed action scenes ever. CGI can drain the soul from anything, if used wrong (or to much).

Tullaryx
03-May-2006, 10:23 PM
The Production Design is definetly to comic book inspired, as I'm sure all aspects of the film are. I just can't take a film that's so silly seriously, nor be excited by it's one dimensional characters who duke it out in some of the most heavily CGIed action scenes ever. CGI can drain the soul from anything, if used wrong (or to much).

I'd actually agree with you on the CG-fight. It did look like CGI. I think I'm more willing to forgive that than most just for the sheer energy of the fight themselves. I knew going in to watch the sequel that I shouldn't expect thought-provoking and life-affirming themes. I went in to see a popcorn, action flick and I got it. :)

EvilNed
03-May-2006, 10:29 PM
That's exactly what I expected too. But I just hate it when filmmakers are to lazy to stage real fights, stunts, sets and do it all CGI.

Tri0xin
04-May-2006, 12:17 AM
Deacon Frost or whatever his name was, was an awesome bad guy. When he turned into the Blood God, I was like rock on.