Clip from BLADE 3 in Quicktime

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-06-14 07:35am

http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/ ... -page.html

Not bad ...

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-14 08:09am

Meh. Blade 2 looks cooler at this point. Blade 1 sucked (especially el cheapo effects at the end).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-14 08:13am

Vympel wrote:Meh. Blade 2 looks cooler at this point. Blade 1 sucked (especially el cheapo effects at the end).

Well without the first you wouldn't have number 2, so I still give it respect, even if the second has ninjas, namely one who is Danny John-Jools.

I hear the third has a cool car chase in a tunnel and something about the US gov't.

G-Man: Do you even know who's in the White House?

Blade: Yeah... an asshole.

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2004-06-14 08:26am

Vympel wrote:Meh. Blade 2 looks cooler at this point. Blade 1 sucked (especially el cheapo effects at the end).

You didn't like the first film?

heresey I say, Heresey!
But anyway, I'm looking at the plot synopsis now and......

When the Vampire Nation hatches a plan to frame Blade in a series of brutal killings, he must join forces with the Nightstalkers, a clan of human vampire hunters, in an extreme battle in which the trail of blood leads directly to the notorious vampire legend, Dracula.

Aw, christo, their not trying to work Dracula into the script are they?

They should have gone with this one.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-14 11:22am

Dirty Harry wrote:
Vympel wrote:Meh. Blade 2 looks cooler at this point. Blade 1 sucked (especially el cheapo effects at the end).
You didn't like the first film? heresey I say, Heresey!
But anyway, I'm looking at the plot synopsis now and......

When the Vampire Nation hatches a plan to frame Blade in a series of brutal killings, he must join forces with the Nightstalkers, a clan of human vampire hunters, in an extreme battle in which the trail of blood leads directly to the notorious vampire legend, Dracula.
Aw, christo, their not trying to work Dracula into the script are they?
They should have gone with this one.

if i remember correctly, the original blade comic book series actually did have a plotline involving Dracula.

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2004-06-14 11:33am

ah, I see.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-06-14 12:28pm

Yes it did. Along with Dracula fighting the Silver Surfer. Ooh, they should add him in there too.

spongyblue · Post by **spongyblue** » 2004-06-14 05:22pm

Don't forget Howard the Duck. He killed quite a few vamps if I remember. I was always hopeing for Frank Drake,Hannible King or Morbius to show up in a Blade movie. The Midnight Sons where cool.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-06-14 06:06pm

spongyblue wrote:Don't forget Howard the Duck. He killed quite a few vamps if I remember. I was always hopeing for Frank Drake,Hannible King or Morbius to show up in a Blade movie. The Midnight Sons where cool.

Well, supposedly the guy at the end of the alternate ending of Blade might have been Morbius.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-14 08:35pm

Vympel wrote:Meh. Blade 2 looks cooler at this point. Blade 1 sucked (especially el cheapo effects at the end).

The problem with Blade 2 was that it was just the first one with a greater effects budget. That and the massive Matrix-ism feel to it.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-06-15 12:47am

Blade was ok, Blade 2 sucked.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-06-15 03:47am

spongyblue wrote:Don't forget Howard the Duck. He killed quite a few vamps if I remember. I was always hopeing for Frank Drake,Hannible King or Morbius to show up in a Blade movie. The Midnight Sons where cool.

Didn't you see the clip? It isn't Hannibal King. His name is Fuck You.

spazkitten · Post by **spazkitten** » 2004-06-15 07:38pm

Eh, looks kewl. Might redeem the suckiness of the last one.

Is that Van Wilder fighting alongside Blade? **checking faithful imdb** Yep. Ryan Reynolds. Wtf are they thinking?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-06-15 09:29pm

From people that have seen the movie, he actually does well enough.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-06-15 09:37pm

I've only seen the first one, which I thought was utter idiotic trash.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-06-16 01:50am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I've only seen the first one, which I thought was utter idiotic trash.

Second one is worse.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-06-16 02:17am

Why the fuck would you use a bow and arrows instead of a gun?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-06-16 02:55am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Why the fuck would you use a bow and arrows instead of a gun?

Because it looks cool.

But really, I'm hoping it's explained plausibly in the movie.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2004-06-16 05:55am

They'll probably explain it something like "vampires are highly allergic to pointy wooden sticks in their hearts, just like they are to silver and garlic and UV-light. So allergic, in fact, that it'll make them blow up". Maybe they'll throw in a line or two about retro-viri and all that. No wait, they allready did that in the first one.
In case anyone didn't notice, I hate it when Hollywood have to make everything sound scientific. Vampires are undead, cool and supernatural beings. They are not infected by a viral disease! (Though this site would have you believe otherwise

)

The biggest problem with Blade 1 was that they replaced his lightsabre-ish sword (he had it in the Spiderman cartoon at least) with some katana-almost thing. That and that it spread the horrible myth that vampires are vulnerable to silver. That's werewolves goddamnit!!

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-06-16 07:20am

People just need to watch buffy to realise vampires don't have a problem with silver

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2004-06-16 08:13am

The biggest problem with Blade 1 was that they replaced his lightsabre-ish sword (he had it in the Spiderman cartoon at least) with some katana-almost thing. That and that it spread the horrible myth that vampires are vulnerable to silver. That's werewolves goddamnit!!

Depending on which vampire myths you took then they are according to some beliefs, and there certainly are worse ones that could be used (else we could have him throwing a handful of rice on the ground and gunning the vamps down while they're busy counting it).

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-06-16 09:07am

Zac Naloen wrote:People just need to watch buffy to realise vampires don't have a problem with silver

No, that shit is just as bad. They should read Dracula and watch both versions of Nosferatu...

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-06-16 01:43pm

Dooey Jo wrote:They'll probably explain it something like "vampires are highly allergic to pointy wooden sticks in their hearts, just like they are to silver and garlic and UV-light. So allergic, in fact, that it'll make them blow up". Maybe they'll throw in a line or two about retro-viri and all that. No wait, they allready did that in the first one.
In case anyone didn't notice, I hate it when Hollywood have to make everything sound scientific. Vampires are undead, cool and supernatural beings. They are not infected by a viral disease! (Though this site would have you believe otherwise )

Considering that they have gods and such, they're still rather supernatural. Even if their vulnerabilities have a scientific basis.

The biggest problem with Blade 1 was that they replaced his lightsabre-ish sword (he had it in the Spiderman cartoon at least) with some katana-almost thing. That and that it spread the horrible myth that vampires are vulnerable to silver. That's werewolves goddamnit!!

Yes, because as we all know real vampires are not vulnerable to silver.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2004-06-17 07:04am

neoolong wrote:Considering that they have gods and such, they're still rather supernatural. Even if their vulnerabilities have a scientific basis.

If they could manage to put gods in there, without explaining, why did they have to try to explain the other things? It's just like that Resident Evil movie where the computer or whatever said something about why zombies could be real and tried to make it sound scientific. It's completely unnecessary and just sounds stupid!

Yes, because as we all know real vampires are not vulnerable to silver.

The originals (Dracula, Ruthven, Varney and the guys) weren't. The mythical vampires are rarely killed or even hurt by silver. Werewolves on the other hand are almost always said to be very vulnerable to silver. They are mixing the myths and I don't like it!

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2004-06-17 07:09am

SylasGaunt wrote:Depending on which vampire myths you took then they are according to some beliefs, and there certainly are worse ones that could be used (else we could have him throwing a handful of rice on the ground and gunning the vamps down while they're busy counting it).

Yeah, they had that kind of vampire in X-files once, IIRC. And according to some the only way to kill them is to burn them and spread the ashes in a river. There are a lot of myths and the best would be to use the most common, like Stoker did when he wrote Dracula (and then he added some to that. Like the exchange of blood in order to make a new vampire).