Clip from BLADE 3 in Quicktime

[SylasGaunt]

[
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!

Bah if you look at some myths vampires and werewolves are two stages of the same beasty (with the vampire being what you get after a werewolf dies).

There are a few IIRC that put vampires as fearing silver, and then there's teh general belief in many cultures that silver was a protection against evil (which is probably what this is based off of).

The silver thing may not be something you like but lets face it it seems a lot less stupid to some people than say, vampires having a compulsive urge to count things even to the point of losing interest in their victims or staying outside until the sun comes up. Plus the Blade series generally seems to go with its own vampiric mythology which is somewhat loosely based on what's out there (hence the whole virus thing, and the EDTA).

Of course all western vampires suck because the whole body gets up instead of being a shrieking, flying head with entrails hanging off it (coolest. vampires. ever.) Then there was that one the professor mentioned in my Literature and the Occult class that fed through an orifice in the back of its neck (and that you could cause to suffocate by stuffing a hanky in there when it tried to munch on you).

[neoolong]

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?

Gee maybe because one of the characters was a doctor.

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!

No, they're trying to tie in a supernatural character into the real world. So in order to keep it as real as possible they try to use science to explain it.

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!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire

Read the part of destroying vampires. Also, look at the species. There are more "originals" than European ones.

Oh, and isn't Ruthven a fictional character? Created by Polidori and based on Byron? He made the damn thing up and based it on a human. You can't exactly take that as an example of the original vampire.

[Dooey Jo]

If they could manage to put gods in there, without explaining, why did they have to try to explain the other things?

Gee maybe because one of the characters was a doctor.

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!

No, they're trying to tie in a supernatural character into the real world. So in order to keep it as real as possible they try to use science to explain it.

And if they do that, then it's no longer a supernatural character, is it? It's no longer a vampire, but a virus-infected human.

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!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire

Read the part of destroying vampires. Also, look at the species. There are more "originals" than European ones.

Oh, and isn't Ruthven a fictional character? Created by Polidori and based on Byron? He made the damn thing up and based it on a human. You can't exactly take that as an example of the original vampire.

They're all fictional. That's what I meant by originals. Not the original mythical vampires because they are so different from one myth to another (some don't even drink blood which would normally classify them as non-vampires).

And really, vampires being hurt by silver doesn't make sense. It's said to be the metal of the moon and vampires don't have any special connection to the moon (werewolves do, though). The only reason people thought silver would protect them, was that it was usually the most expensive thing they had in the house and vampires would be afraid of it because of that (for whatever reason). Most of the other myths makes at least some sense (even the sunlight thing, which is a lot less common than you'd think). That's probably why Bram Stoker didn't include it in Dracula, 'cause it's makes no sense.

[neoolong]

And if they do that, then it's no longer a supernatural character, is it? It's no longer a vampire, but a virus-infected human.

No. It is still supernatural, however parts of it are still explained through science.

Try explaining the blood god through just the science in the movie.

They're all fictional. That's what I meant by originals. Not the original mythical vampires because they are so different from one myth to another (some don't even drink blood which would normally classify them as non-vampires).

Exactly. Without either a consistent mythical source or real vampires you can't say that something doesn't make sense, ie silver, as long as it appears in one of the myths.

And really, vampires being hurt by silver doesn't make sense. It's said to be the metal of the moon and vampires don't have any special connection to the moon (werewolves do, though).

Except that Chinese vampire myths says they are connected to the moon.

The only reason people thought silver would protect them, was that it was usually the most expensive thing they had in the house and vampires would be afraid of it because of that (for whatever reason).

It was considered a symbol of purity. And thus would protect them from evil and became a way to kill them one supposes. It is not just because it was expensive. Really, if that was the case you'd think that jewels would work against vampires too.

Most of the other myths makes at least some sense (even the sunlight thing, which is a lot less common than you'd think).

It's a myth. It doesn't have to make sense.

That's probably why Bram Stoker didn't include it in Dracula, 'cause it's makes no sense.

So what you are saying is that Bram Stoker decided to change the characteristics of vampires because he felt it didn't make sense.

However, you originally said that vampire vulnerability to silver is a "horrible myth." If Bram Stoker is allowed to change the characteristics of vampires, why can't the creators of Blade to the same thing? Just because you feel that particular change doesn't make sense? One can make the same argument against Stoker's Dracula simply because he feels that Stoker's change creates another "horrible myth" about vampires.

[Dooey Jo]

No. It is still supernatural, however parts of it are still explained through science.

Try explaining the blood god through just the science in the movie.

If they wanted to, they could have, but it would have sounded no more real than the virus explanation.

Exactly. Without either a consistent mythical source or real vampires you can't say that something doesn't make sense, ie silver, as long as it appears in one of the myths.

No, but you could take the most common traits from all the myths to create some kind of average which could be used as a "true" vampire.

Except that Chinese vampire myths says they are connected to the moon.

Do silver hurt these Chinese vampires? Anyway, many other traditions say they aren't.

It was considered a symbol of purity. And thus would protect them from evil and became a way to kill them one supposes. It is not just because it was expensive. Really, if that was the case you'd think that jewels would work against vampires too.

I've read at least one story where they drew away the vampire using jewels and gold coins. And yes, you are correct on the symbol of purity thing. Forgot about that

So what you are saying is that Bram Stoker decided to change the characteristics of vampires because he felt it didn't make sense.

No, like I said, I think he read as many myths he could find and tried to create an average, and added some characteristics to that in order to make a better book. Of course, it could be argued the creators of Blade did the same thing. I haven't read the comics, just seen the films and the episodes of the Spiderman cartoon that featured him. And from that it would seem they added the silver thing so Blade could shoot silver bullets for an increased coolness factor. I think it's only increasing the stupidity factor but that's me.

However, you originally said that vampire vulnerability to silver is a "horrible myth." If Bram Stoker is allowed to change the characteristics of vampires, why can't the creators of Blade to the same thing? Just because you feel that particular change doesn't make sense? One can make the same argument against Stoker's Dracula simply because he feels that Stoker's change creates another "horrible myth" about vampires.

Of course one can. After all, what's horrible is just an opinion (my opinion in this case). I think it is a horrible myth because silver vulnerability is traditionally a trait of werewolves, and I suspect that might be were the creators of Blade got the idea from, not the vampire myths. Not that it really matters...

[neoolong]

No. It is still supernatural, however parts of it are still explained through science.

Try explaining the blood god through just the science in the movie.

If they wanted to, they could have, but it would have sounded no more real than the virus explanation.

It was a style choice. Nothing more.

Exactly. Without either a consistent mythical source or real vampires you can't say that something doesn't make sense, ie silver, as long as it appears in one of the myths.

No, but you could take the most common traits from all the myths to create some kind of average which could be used as a "true" vampire.

Which is still not going to be a "true vampire" since you can't average traits together from multiple sources. So again, you're not creating any sort of real vampire.

Besides, from the style the movie sets some of the aspects cannot be averaged into it. Like turning into bats and wolves.

Except that Chinese vampire myths says they are connected to the moon.

Do silver hurt these Chinese vampires? Anyway, many other traditions say they aren't.

Irrelant. You claimed that vampires had no connection to the moon. Some do.

As for silver, why does it have to be connected to the moon? I already said that it was thought of as a metal of purity. Nothing to do with the moon in particular.

It was considered a symbol of purity. And thus would protect them from evil and became a way to kill them one supposes. It is not just because it was expensive. Really, if that was the case you'd think that jewels would work against vampires too.

I've read at least one story where they drew away the vampire using jewels and gold coins. And yes, you are correct on the symbol of purity thing. Forgot about that

Which is even more moronic than saying that silver works because it is pure. The concept that something is valuable is merely a human quality put on it. Are you saying that an expensive laptop should work against a vampire as well? But will it not work in a few years when it is nearly obsolete?

So what you are saying is that Bram Stoker decided to change the characteristics of vampires because he felt it didn't make sense.

No, like I said, I think he read as many myths he could find and tried to create an average, and added some characteristics to that in order to make a better book. Of course, it could be argued the creators of Blade did the same thing. I haven't read the comics, just seen the films and the episodes of the Spiderman cartoon that featured him. And from that it would seem they added the silver thing so Blade could shoot silver bullets for an increased coolness factor. I think it's only increasing the stupidity factor but that's me.

You can't base it off the cartoon. Especially considering that nobody actually uses real guns. They weren't allowed to show them. It's a children's cartoon, there were quite a few limits on how far they could go.

Besides, giving him a gun makes sense considering that they are trying to make an action movie. What are they going to do, make him walk up to every vampire when they're sleeping and hammer a stake in their hearts?

However, you originally said that vampire vulnerability to silver is a "horrible myth." If Bram Stoker is allowed to change the characteristics of vampires, why can't the creators of Blade to the same thing? Just because you feel that particular change doesn't make sense? One can make the same argument against Stoker's Dracula simply because he feels that Stoker's change creates another "horrible myth" about vampires.

Of course one can. After all, what's horrible is just an opinion (my opinion in this case). I think it is a horrible myth because silver vulnerability is traditionally a trait of werewolves, and I suspect that might be were the creators of Blade got the idea from, not the vampire myths. Not that it really matters...

As previously mentioned vampires and werewolves are tied together in myth. So crossovers like that aren't suprising. For another, holy water is supposed to work on werewolves. Is that another horrible myth? For who, vampires or werewolves?

The fact is that it is has a basis in myth. No matter where the creators originally got the idea. It is therefore valid to use it, whether you think it is horrible or not. At least it came from some real source, the myths, as opposed to just making things up.

[Majin Gojira]

Ya know...I'm sick of people saying "Well in some myths" and not saying WHICH myths they are. Goddamn it, I have the Vampire Slayer's Feild Guide to the Undead sitting nearby (it really should be retitled "Occulists Guide to Demi-Human Nocturnal Carnivours"), Site your freakin' source of the myth: Beast name and country of Origin.

[Majin Gojira]

Example Entry from said book that is very enlightening:

[quote="The Vampire Slayer's Feild Guide to the Undead", p.25]
The stake through the heart is a trickey one because it does appear in folk tales of vampires from all over the world, but it is not used to kill the undead [Note: Effectively removing things such as "Wooden Bullets" or Silver Arrows]. Despite the quick, clean "dustings" shown on Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the bloody stakings in so many vampire films, the stake was not a weapon used to actually destroy a vampire, but a tool in a more elaborate exorsism...The Kolzak of Dalmatia [the area of land spread across edge of the adriatic seaincluding a small portion of Italy] is the only vampire that will perish from a staking[/quote]

So much for "Silver will Kill Vampires"... [/quote]

[Majin Gojira]

Oh God damnit, nothing's coming out right today...

I meant to add that all series create their own vampire mythos by drawing on older myths and previous amalgams/original ideas. There aint' going to be one that matches the old myths (or better said "Any old myth") exactly. It's whether they work internally that matters.

Oh yes, and I find the viral explination annoying...but that's just my opinion.

[Dooey Jo]

Which is still not going to be a "true vampire" since you can't average traits together from multiple sources. So again, you're not creating any sort of real vampire.

Besides, from the style the movie sets some of the aspects cannot be averaged into it. Like turning into bats and wolves.

Conceded.

However, by average I meant one would take perhaps 20 of the most common traits. It would probably be useless for storytelling purposes, but you could use it to compare different types of vampires more easily.

Irrelant. You claimed that vampires had no connection to the moon. Some do.

As for silver, why does it have to be connected to the moon? I already said that it was thought of as a metal of purity. Nothing to do with the moon in particular.

Because it hurts werewolves because of it's connection to the moon. If it hurts vampires because of it's supposed purity, then that's fine. I just don't want them mixed up with werewolves, that's all.

Which is even more moronic than saying that silver works because it is pure. The concept that something is valuable is merely a human quality put on it. Are you saying that an expensive laptop should work against a vampire as well? But will it not work in a few years when it is nearly obsolete?

I don't think they had laptops back then. Anyway, like you said, myths don't always make sense. I read it in a collection of local folklore I found at the library a few years ago.

You can't base it off the cartoon. Especially considering that nobody actually uses real guns. They weren't allowed to show them. It's a children's cartoon, there were quite a few limits on how far they could go.

I didn't base anything of the cartoon, I mentioned it because I've seen Blade there. IIRC, the only thing he did there, was to talk to Spidey and hunt that Morpheus (or whatever his name was) character. He mostly used his lightsabre-ish sword (supposedly emitting UV-light, I think, for killing vampires), and then his mother came and they flew away to Transylvania to live with someone I thought was Dracula. Or was it Morpheus that flew away..? It's been years since I saw that thing.
Are you sure about the gun thing, though? I seem to recall the bad guys quite frequently using guns.

Besides, giving him a gun makes sense considering that they are trying to make an action movie. What are they going to do, make him walk up to every vampire when they're sleeping and hammer a stake in their hearts?

No that wouldn't work for an action movie. But they could've made a horror movie or thriller, instead. Then it could've worked. (with the effects budget they had for the first film, it probably would have made a much better film, too)

As previously mentioned vampires and werewolves are tied together in myth. So crossovers like that aren't suprising. For another, holy water is supposed to work on werewolves. Is that another horrible myth? For who, vampires or werewolves?

Holy water is based on faith in the church or god/s, and faith was supposed to work on all "evil" things.

Werewolves and vampires are two completely different things. One is a living person who occasionally turns into a wolf, usually during full moon, and then eats people and/or cattle. The other is a dead body re-animated, for one reason or another, that causes people to die and sometimes become vampires themselves, as can be read, for example, in the story of Peter Plogojowitz (which I'm sure one can find on Google, or just click here). People bitten by werewolves might become werewolves themselves but not if the person is already dead. Only vampires are "undead". In what sources are vampires and werewolves tied together?

The fact is that it is has a basis in myth. No matter where the creators originally got the idea. It is therefore valid to use it, whether you think it is horrible or not. At least it came from some real source, the myths, as opposed to just making things up.

I can't say anything is valid or invalid, even if they did just make something up. They are trying to tell a story/make a cool action flick, and will probably come up with things necessary to do so. I can find certain parts stupid or even horrible but, like I said, that is my opinion.

[Dooey Jo]

Example Entry from said book that is very enlightening:

The stake through the heart is a trickey one because it does appear in folk tales of vampires from all over the world, but it is not used to kill the undead [Note: Effectively removing things such as "Wooden Bullets" or Silver Arrows]. Despite the quick, clean "dustings" shown on Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the bloody stakings in so many vampire films, the stake was not a weapon used to actually destroy a vampire, but a tool in a more elaborate exorsism...The Kolzak of Dalmatia [the area of land spread across edge of the adriatic seaincluding a small portion of Italy] is the only vampire that will perish from a staking

So much for "Silver will Kill Vampires"...

Don't you mean stakes, instead of silver? Because, if not, what has that quote to do with silver?

[Majin Gojira]

Actually it does both--Silver is never used to KILL vampires by itself. Like stakes, it is occasionally (read: all I've found so far is Silver Dimes being used as protective wards) to simply PIN the vampire down so a more elaborate exorsism can be performed to do the actual killing: The basic ritual is pin it down with stake, cut off head (sometimes cut out heart), decapitation and stuffing the mouth with garlic or holy waffers. Then re-intering the body.

The only sure-fire way to kill a vampire from anywhere around the globe is Fire--and lots of it.

[neoolong]

Which is still not going to be a "true vampire" since you can't average traits together from multiple sources. So again, you're not creating any sort of real vampire.

Besides, from the style the movie sets some of the aspects cannot be averaged into it. Like turning into bats and wolves.

Conceded.

However, by average I meant one would take perhaps 20 of the most common traits. It would probably be useless for storytelling purposes, but you could use it to compare different types of vampires more easily.

Why would you want to compare different types?

Irrelant. You claimed that vampires had no connection to the moon. Some do.

As for silver, why does it have to be connected to the moon? I already said that it was thought of as a metal of purity. Nothing to do with the moon in particular.

Because it hurts werewolves because of it's connection to the moon. If it hurts vampires because of it's supposed purity, then that's fine. I just don't want them mixed up with werewolves, that's all.

Well, they clearly established that they are vampires in the movie so there really isn't a worry about mixing anything up.

Which is even more moronic than saying that silver works because it is pure. The concept that something is valuable is merely a human quality put on it. Are you saying that an expensive laptop should work against a vampire as well? But will it not work in a few years when it is nearly obsolete?

I don't think they had laptops back then. Anyway, like you said, myths don't always make sense. I read it in a collection of local folklore I found at the library a few years ago.

I meant laptops now. You can sub in anything expensive that drops in value.

You can't base it off the cartoon. Especially considering that nobody actually uses real guns. They weren't allowed to show them. It's a children's cartoon, there were quite a few limits on how far they could go.

I didn't base anything of the cartoon, I mentioned it because I've seen Blade there. IIRC, the only thing he did there, was to talk to Spidey and hunt that Morpheus (or whatever his name was) character. He mostly used his lightsabre-ish sword (supposedly emitting UV-light, I think, for killing vampires), and then his mother came and they flew away to Transylvania to live with someone I thought was Dracula. Or was it Morpheus that flew away..? It's been years since I saw that thing.
Are you sure about the gun thing, though? I seem to recall the bad guys quite frequently using guns.

I meant that you can't get a sense of Blade from merely the tv show. And by guns I mean real guns. They had to sub in lasers because they weren't allowed to show real guns.

Besides, giving him a gun makes sense considering that they are trying to make an action movie. What are they going to do, make him walk up to every vampire when they're sleeping and hammer a stake in their hearts?

No that wouldn't work for an action movie. But they could've made a horror movie or thriller, instead. Then it could've worked. (with the effects budget they had for the first film, it probably would have made a much better film, too)

They were working with Blade as source material and always planned on an action movie. You can't judge it on what it should have been in order to fit what you want it to be.

As previously mentioned vampires and werewolves are tied together in myth. So crossovers like that aren't suprising. For another, holy water is supposed to work on werewolves. Is that another horrible myth? For who, vampires or werewolves?

Holy water is based on faith in the church or god/s, and faith was supposed to work on all "evil" things.

Werewolves and vampires are two completely different things. One is a living person who occasionally turns into a wolf, usually during full moon, and then eats people and/or cattle. The other is a dead body re-animated, for one reason or another, that causes people to die and sometimes become vampires themselves, as can be read, for example, in the story of Peter Plogojowitz (which I'm sure one can find on Google, or just click here). People bitten by werewolves might become werewolves themselves but not if the person is already dead. Only vampires are "undead". In what sources are vampires and werewolves tied together?

Ask SylasGaunt, he mentioned it. I've read the same thing though can't remember where.

The fact is that it is has a basis in myth. No matter where the creators originally got the idea. It is therefore valid to use it, whether you think it is horrible or not. At least it came from some real source, the myths, as opposed to just making things up.

I can't say anything is valid or invalid, even if they did just make something up. They are trying to tell a story/make a cool action flick, and will probably come up with things necessary to do so. I can find certain parts stupid or even horrible but, like I said, that is my opinion.

Then why add the myth part to it?

[Tsyroc]

Actually it does both--Silver is never used to KILL vampires by itself. Like stakes, it is occasionally (read: all I've found so far is Silver Dimes being used as protective wards) to simply PIN the vampire down so a more elaborate exorsism can be performed to do the actual killing: The basic ritual is pin it down with stake, cut off head (sometimes cut out heart), decapitation and stuffing the mouth with garlic or holy waffers. Then re-intering the body.

The only sure-fire way to kill a vampire from anywhere around the globe is Fire--and lots of it.

I can't remember where but recently I saw something where it was put out that vampires weren't driven off by garlic. The garlic was used to help the vampire hunters deal with the smell associated with rotting corpses.

The vampires in Marvel Comics (which Blade comes from) are harmed by silver but not to the extent that is shown in the movies. Basically, it burns them some if they touch it so it can be good to use against them. Of course the Marvel Vamps are of a mystical origin instead of the viral so that's been changed.

I never really cared for Tomb of Dracula so I really can't say for certain how much silver hurt the Marvel vamps. Besides the burning I think it mostly allowed weapons made from silver to be more effective against vamps than something made of steel. IIRC they could heal from a wound caused by a steel blade almost instantly but a wound caused by silver would take longer. I also think that silver wound would impair the use of their other abilities, shape changing and the like (another thing the movies don't have).

I would have preferred the mystical vamps to the viral ones but the movie Blade is so much better than the comic one that I can take the trade off.

I can't say that the clip gives me high hopes for Trinity. I don't like the CG Blade and it's a stupid and useless bit if they aren't going to make it look right (him jumping out of the building after getting his sword).

[neoolong]

Actually the vampires in Blade are both viral and supernatural. The whole thing with the blood god and flying spirits looked pretty damn supernatural to me.

[Majin Gojira]

Ya know, Silver is really a weak metal IIRC, and it deforms easily.

My guess is that the weapons in Blade are not pure silver, but Silver plated -- making them more effective and a hell of a lot cheaper.

[neoolong]

Ya know, Silver is really a weak metal IIRC, and it deforms easily.

My guess is that the weapons in Blade are not pure silver, but Silver plated -- making them more effective and a hell of a lot cheaper.

Don't know about that. In Blade we see him making bullets. They looked the same when fired as the bullets he cast. It looked like he was only using one metal.

[Majin Gojira]

His Sword has to be, no way it could do what it has done if it were solid Silver.

[neoolong]

His Sword has to be, no way it could do what it has done if it were solid Silver.

Frost said it was titanium.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Yes, Dracula is in this movie- he's played by the guy who starred in "John Doe."

[Dooey Jo]

However, by average I meant one would take perhaps 20 of the most common traits. It would probably be useless for storytelling purposes, but you could use it to compare different types of vampires more easily.

Why would you want to compare different types?

I don't know. Easy classification or "scientific" purposes. Perhaps just for the hell of it. If one can compare different types of sci-fi universes, why vampire myths, too?

I don't think they had laptops back then. Anyway, like you said, myths don't always make sense. I read it in a collection of local folklore I found at the library a few years ago.

I meant laptops now. You can sub in anything expensive that drops in value.

You'd have to ask the people who wrote it (who died 200+ years ago...). It supposedly worked because it was expensive. I know it makes no sense.

*snip*

I meant that you can't get a sense of Blade from merely the tv show. And by guns I mean real guns. They had to sub in lasers because they weren't allowed to show real guns.

And I got my sense of him from the movie. The thing I based on the cartoon would be my previous statement that they should have kept his lightsabre which I found cooler than the sword. And I stand by that statement.

Really? They can show all manners of weird monsters and Dr. Octo, but not real guns?

No that wouldn't work for an action movie. But they could've made a horror movie or thriller, instead. Then it could've worked. (with the effects budget they had for the first film, it probably would have made a much better film, too)

They were working with Blade as source material and always planned on an action movie. You can't judge it on what it should have been in order to fit what you want it to be.

No, I judge it by what I see and then try to come up with ideas on how they could've made it better.

I can't say anything is valid or invalid, even if they did just make something up. They are trying to tell a story/make a cool action flick, and will probably come up with things necessary to do so. I can find certain parts stupid or even horrible but, like I said, that is my opinion.

Then why add the myth part to it?

Bad choice of words, I suppose. Maybe "idea" or something would have been better.

[neoolong]

Why would you want to compare different types?

I don't know. Easy classification or "scientific" purposes. Perhaps just for the hell of it. If one can compare different types of sci-fi universes, why vampire myths, too?

Yes, but then you just have to use what you're given.

I meant laptops now. You can sub in anything expensive that drops in value.

You'd have to ask the people who wrote it (who died 200+ years ago...). It supposedly worked because it was expensive. I know it makes no sense.

That's my point. It's an inherently stupid idea since things don't maintain consistent value or price.

And I got my sense of him from the movie.

He's different in the comic.

The thing I based on the cartoon would be my previous statement that they should have kept his lightsabre which I found cooler than the sword. And I stand by that statement.

C'mon, which is more realistic, a sword or a lightsabre?

Really? They can show all manners of weird monsters and Dr. Octo, but not real guns?

Yes, there is a difference supposedly for "fantasty" violence and "realistic" violence.

One of the reasons you can get away with more gore if the blood is a different color than normal. There were a couple of issues from what I remember, Spider-man can't punch anyone, death and injury are really toned down, no real guns.

They were working with Blade as source material and always planned on an action movie. You can't judge it on what it should have been in order to fit what you want it to be.

No, I judge it by what I see and then try to come up with ideas on how they could've made it better.

Considering that the first one did quite well, and the makers seemed happy enough with the movie, they didn't think it could be better if they changed genre. Even Blade 2, which is the "horror" one, is still heavily action oriented.

Then why add the myth part to it?

Bad choice of words, I suppose. Maybe "idea" or something would have been better.

Okay.

[Dooey Jo]

I don't know. Easy classification or "scientific" purposes. Perhaps just for the hell of it. If one can compare different types of sci-fi universes, why vampire myths, too?

Yes, but then you just have to use what you're given.

Of course, but since there are so many different myths and types, maybe making an "average" vampire would be an easier approach.

You'd have to ask the people who wrote it (who died 200+ years ago...). It supposedly worked because it was expensive. I know it makes no sense.

That's my point. It's an inherently stupid idea since things don't maintain consistent value or price.

Yep. But the idea that vampires have to pick up every grain of rice if you throw it in front of him is quite stupid too. I guess the general population back then was pretty stupid. If the general population believed in that stuff, that is...

And I got my sense of him from the movie.

He's different in the comic.
[/quote]

So I've heard, but I haven't read unfortunately.

The thing I based on the cartoon would be my previous statement that they should have kept his lightsabre which I found cooler than the sword. And I stand by that statement.

C'mon, which is more realistic, a sword or a lightsabre?
[/quote]

Who cares, it's an action movie Might as well make it as cool as possible!

Really? They can show all manners of weird monsters and Dr. Octo, but not real guns?

Yes, there is a difference supposedly for "fantasty" violence and "realistic" violence.

One of the reasons you can get away with more gore if the blood is a different color than normal. There were a couple of issues from what I remember, Spider-man can't punch anyone, death and injury are really toned down, no real guns.
[/quote]

Now that I think about it, Spiderman tend to use his nets (which they changed in the movie to be natural rather than invented by Peter Parker himself like in the comics. That annoyed me too, but that's off-topic) to capture guys and he is usually the person getting beaten and kicked.

No, I judge it by what I see and then try to come up with ideas on how they could've made it better.

Considering that the first one did quite well, and the makers seemed happy enough with the movie, they didn't think it could be better if they changed genre. Even Blade 2, which is the "horror" one, is still heavily action oriented.

I noticed that, otherwise they wouldn't have made a sequel. Blade 2 is a horror movie? They probably just called it horror because it has vampires in it and vampires traditionally are horror characters. Just like most episodes of Buffy which really is action or drama and not horror.

[Dooey Jo]

And that's what happens when you click "submit" instead of "preview". That quote get screwed up

[Dooey Jo]

Gah! THE qouteS get screwed up!