Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know that there has already been a discussion on this movie, however being a big fan of Blade movies it has been said that this up and coming feature is going to pack more action and more computer graphics then that last two movies.

The first movie was very good and had some outstanding computer generated graphics at that time. The story was well written and the action was tight.

When the second movie was release I really liked it, however there were a few areas in which I think they could have done better in computer graphics action simulations. I feel that when Blade first met the blood pack they could have done it a lot better then what they did. The sad part about this, is the fact that you cannot blame the Graphics departments, the studio needed this movie to be released on time, so most of the work was not completed.

Blade 3 is said to hold a lot more action and a lot more computer graphics action. Some people already feel that this movie is going to be a flop and not exceed the previous stories. I on the other hand feel that this movie is going to be the grandfather of all the Blade movies to date.

So if any of you have anything to add on this subject I really would like to hear from you. I know it is really hard to decide at this moment, but there are fans out there that are looking forward to this movie.

I hated the CGI effects in parts of the second one, looked awful. Blade 3 isn't getting good reviews.

Neither did the first 2, not that reviews mean anything to me.

isn't Blade 3 being promoted as the 'finale' to the trilogy any way?
like first he faced the vampires who made him, then he faced the enemies of his enemies, super vamps blood pack or whatever...

now he faces the first/last vampire, the grand daddy of all vampires, etc etc... and with Whistler's daughter

or something like that...

not many more places for the story to go really, after that, without becoming redundant and repetitive retread, I would think.

not that that ever stops Hollyweird from churning out this crap!

I do have to agree with you on this one, the CG were totally rushed in that movie. As for reviews, can you point me in the direction where I can read those reviews? Because seeing the movie has not been released here in the states yet, I want to read where it has been released at.

I thought Whistler's family was dead

^ they are supposed to be he says they were all killed by vamps in the first movie don't he?

the 2nd movie was really poor IMO the CG was terrible as said earlier and the story didn't interest me.

i hope they make the 3rd awesome cause i think it looks kinda alright from the trailers. i want less CG in films more actors actually acting.

They filmed three different endings for Blade 3, so it could be end of the franchise or a new beginning. We will find out when it hits theatres.

Anyway here some nice info if you want it, but it might ruin the film for some of you Whistler dies in the new film, he is killed by the police after they find where Blade's headquarter is. 2 One of the filmed endings include both Blade and Dracula killing eachother. I got this info from SSH a few months ago from someone who saw the film at a test screening, if you want I can give you the link too.

Anyway Blade II's quote "bad" CGI could have been because the budget was only abut 50 million dolllars.

Only mediocre CGI in "Blade 2" were the reapers, with the mandible jaws. You guys are panning for gold in a sewage drain. C'mon..

I agree

The first movie was let down at the end with that terrible scene at the end where the guy is split in two and the blood goes flying up.

It let down such an amazing movie.

But the rest of the movie was fantastic.

I haven't seen the second, but it sounds to me like it isn't as good as the first.

I really do think though that the 3rd is going to be FANTASTIC!

Me too!

i don't think it's gonna have the best graphic... maybe in the franchise. the CG in blade 2 was more than adequate. he looked less cartoonish than in blade. the only thing with the blade 2 graphics was that the fight between neesa and blade, the CGI movements were to fine and fluid. if you compare them to the catual fighting movements of blade and neesa, they don't move as fluidly.

Well they have 11 million more dollars than Blade 2 for Blade:Trinity. I'm assuming the CGI will be better with the extra money.

The review was from people who have seen special screenings, like aint it cool news website etc.

Just look up reviews. I don't listen to reviews hardly, just mentioning it got some negative ones.

It also got ALOT of good ones. So saying it had negative ones doesn't even matter to tell you the truth.

Right we will just have to see this wed.

Yeah

I'm going to be the first in line.

I remember the CGI for the original blade being up to par. The effects in the sequal seemed a little to ambitious for the budget they had to work with though. I dont mind that i could tell that it was a computer animation everytime Blade leaped twenty feet in the air, or was fighting against more than two enemies, but i still noticed. I see many people are saying the effects in Blade 2 were bad, but they werent. The effects went hand and hand with the tone of the film. Now if you said that the story or execution was bad, than, i could agree with you, but the effects were noticable, but decent enough to get the point across without being raunchy.

As for Blade 3 having the best graphics, i highly doubt any movie will top the CGi use in the lord of the rings movies for a while.

Blade is a COMPLETELY different film from LOTR. Blade 3 is not suppose to have the best CGI "ever" because it does not need massive amounts of it like Spider-Man. (1 and 2) It only needs the CGI when the characters/actors have to do something that is not physically possible such as falling 50 feet and crashing into the ground.

Some people say that the SW prequels have poor special effects. Those people are also known as idiots.

Still, I can't see anyone making the argument that Blade 3 will have better CGI than SW Episode 3.

Like I said before, Blade 3 doesn't have to have better CGI because its a completely different genre of film. Its not suppose to have that much CGI like SW does.

The Star Wars prequels are nothing but special effects, which is sad. Must be a dull experience, acting out almost an entire movie infront of a green screen, that is when your character isn't CGI.

TFP is right, nobodies making that arguement anyway.

Now gull darn it, this is my fault and I should have explained myself a little better, when I said best CG ever, I totally meant only the Blade movies and nothing else. Jeepers, sorry about that.

Thanks

Don't worry. This film is going to be great.

And about Whistler's daughter. Her origins are explained in the movie.

seen the movie

it was not as good as the first two.

I mean its watchable but not has good

watchin blade trinity tonight, lets see how its gonna be then!

Barely. That's being generous. You can see my review for more scathingly negative remarks.

Man, you ARE reviews. Good ones too; I've never seen a review I didn't agree with.

I'm usually pretty fair with my reviews, but I honestly didn't see anything positive in this one, aside from the reaper dogs. The CGI was pretty well done, but only there.

It was Great!!! to me.

So can someone give me a review seeing as I wasn't allowed into it because I'm not 15.