Blade 3: Trinity

Originally posted by Aku
I saw blade 3 last night, it was amazing, so many people have said it wasnt good or the critics say its crap but its not, its really good. I didn't find one bit in that movie where i wasnt laughing or feeling that kick ass attitude when he slices up a vampire/zombie whatever thing. I reccommend it big time.

Rating 92%

I completely agree with you 100%

It was very amazing indeed, I even stayed for the credits and with luck because there was about 10 seconds of film footage after the credits ended.

Apart from the fact I was dieing for the toilet all the way through coz i had a large coke before the film started I couldn't leave my seat. By far the BEST superhero movie film of the year. It battered the crap out of spidey-man 2.

Originally posted by Aku
Apart from the fact I was dieing for the toilet all the way through coz i had a large coke before the film started I couldn't leave my seat. By far the BEST superhero movie film of the year. It battered the crap out of spidey-man 2.

Yeah I sat in the front and couldn't take my eyes off of the screen. Its hard to compare Spidey and Blade,

How about this,

Spidey 2 Best action PG-13 film of the year

Blade:Trinity Best action R film of the year

i just watched this now today i and agree with the posts made it is the best superhero movie made this year. And im so glad that it wasnt like the 2nd one because that was just horrible.
best Blade movie IMO

SAW IT LAST NIGHT ,NOT BAD BUT NOT A PATCH ON 1 AND WHO THE F..K THOUGHT PARKER POSEY WOULD BE GOOD AS A VAMPIRE SHOULD BE PUBLICLY EXECUTED!. !!!!WARNING SPOILERS!!!!!
AND THE LAST PART OF THE FILM WHICH TO AVOID SPOLING IT FOR THOSE WHO AINT SEEN IT,WAS A TOTAL PISS TAKE,IM TALKIN THE FAVOUR THAT DRACULA DOES FOR BLADE,WTF???,LOL GIMME A BREAK,IM SUPRISED THOSE OF U WHO SAW IT AINT MENTIONED IT IN YOUR POSTS
I KNOW BLADE MOVIES ARE FANTASY AND BELEIVE ME IM A BIG FAN,ESPECIALLY OF 1,BUT LETS FACE IT UR NEMISIS AINT GONNA DO U FAVOURS,LMAO,SO A PISS POOR ENDING FROM MY POINT OF VIEW

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
Yes I would, but when have you ever seen at least 85% continuity in a franchise that has 3 or more films?? (excluding LOTR) It is something that happens very rarely.

Why did you list Blade II as a flop?? And Blade:Trinity?? Which was just relased days ago. Also Zig Zag was never released in more than a few theatres it was only a short film that David Goyer made to gain more directing experience.

Wesley has been known to occasionally reject roles like he did with Shaft (2000) which was then handed down to Jackson. He is also in talks to star in another Marvel franchise, Black Panther. Although very doubtful he could also star in another Blade film as well.

Anyway he has these three films lined up next

# John Doe (2004) (pre-production) .... John Doe
# 7 Seconds (2005) (post-production) .... John Tuliver
# Chaos (2005/I) (post-production) .... E. Lorenz

Wesley Snipes has his own way of thinking, he is a man who is difficult to completely understand, so when it comes to the roles he chooses nobody is entirely sure why or why not he picks them.

Blade becoming a "boring character" is your oppinion and all I can say about that is that my oppinion on that subject differs from yours. (SPOILER!!) Blade did die in Blade:Trinity but after the test screening the ending was replaced by another ending they filmed which was the one that we saw in theatres. I personally would have had Blade go wild and feed on the citizens if at least for five minutes to show that the serum was no longer strong enough to hold his hunger.

David Goyer probably had at least two different versions of this film when you think about all the alternate endings and deleted scenes, so perhaps what we saw on screen was not the best version. You also have to take into consideration that this was the first film he has ever directed. (besides a short film, Zig Zag)

When have I?

Star Wars, Original Trilogy? Back to the Future? Indiana Jones? The Dead Trilogy? The Naked Gun Trilogy? They ALL kept the same theme, and were aware of what happened in the previous installments. "Blade" didn't. It was never intended to be a trilogy, and it shows with it's lack of continuity, and pathetic bridging.

As for Wesley Snipe's movies, I listed those movies, and figured you'd know better than to include "Blade" or "Blade 2". "Zig Zag", being released in only one theatre and making only $2,000 should have been a sign that Goyer needed A LOT more experience as a director, before taking on the final movie of a successful franchise, ESPECIALLY after Guillermo del Toro. Goyer had directed ONE movies before "Trinity"! ONE! What made him think he could do it!? He lost whatever touch he had, and the franchise got progressievely worse, with his horrid script writing and direction being its demise.

Snipes won't be in anymore "Blade" movies, thankfully, and he honestly shouldn't be too picky about his movie roles either, because he's a one trick pony now. Just like Steven Segal, his days are numbered. I guess he was real picky when "To Wong Foo.." came around too, eh? If there were a sequel, he's be all over it.

After reading all these posts, it's my opinion that you people are mad. This movie is so incredibly flawed, and sticking up for this hack Goyer literally makes me sick to my stomach.

Here's a few things that you may want to take into consideration, when debating the "genius" of Goyer's writing.

Spoiler:
If "Drake" (how gay) were dead, how could he shapeshift into Blade at the end? HE COULDN'T! HE WAS DEAD!

Spoiler:
How could Drake be the LAST person to die in the movie, although he was the FIRST to be injected with that poison?

Spoiler:
Whistler is "conveniently" re-married, just so Goyer can explain Abigail being born out of wedlock? I highly doubt that was even taken into consideration before.

Spoiler:
The reaper dogs? 1. How did they get reaper DNA when Blade took out the entire Damaskino's clan in 2? 2. Why didn't they use the DNA on THEMSELVES?! 3. What would crossbreeding a DOG do for their species? That's worse than the ****ing Hulk dogs.

Spoiler:
The beginning of the film said "Drake" was unearthed in Syria. Ryan Reynolds said they found him in Iraq? Which is it, Davey?

Aside from contradictions, having no fluency with the original or sequel, being a virtual carbon copy of 2 minus the character devlopment, excitement, creative plot, action sequences, and anything else enjoyable, what made this film so good that you'd consider it to be the best R rated movie of the year, especially with "Collateral", "Man on Fire" AND "Eternal Sunshine" sharing the same rating, and ALL being NOTABLE better than "Blade: Trinity".

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
When have I?

Star Wars, Original Trilogy? Back to the Future? Indiana Jones? The Dead Trilogy? The Naked Gun Trilogy? They ALL kept the same theme, and were aware of what happened in the previous installments. "Blade" didn't. It was never intended to be a trilogy, and it shows with it's lack of continuity, and pathetic bridging.

As for Wesley Snipe's movies, I listed those movies, and figured you'd know better than to include "Blade" or "Blade 2". "Zig Zag", being released in only one theatre and making only $2,000 should have been a sign that Goyer needed [B]A LOT more experience as a director, before taking on the final movie of a successful franchise, ESPECIALLY after Guillermo del Toro. Goyer had directed ONE movies before "Trinity"! ONE! What made him think he could do it!? He lost whatever touch he had, and the franchise got progressievely worse, with his horrid script writing and direction being its demise.

Snipes won't be in anymore "Blade" movies, thankfully, and he honestly shouldn't be too picky about his movie roles either, because he's a one trick pony now. Just like Steven Segal, his days are numbered. I guess he was real picky when "To Wong Foo.." came around too, eh? If there were a sequel, he's be all over it.

After reading all these posts, it's my opinion that you people are mad. This movie is so incredibly flawed, and sticking up for this hack Goyer literally makes me sick to my stomach.

Here's a few things that you may want to take into consideration, when debating the "genius" of Goyer's writing.

Spoiler:
If "Drake" (how gay) were dead, how could he shapeshift into Blade at the end? HE COULDN'T! HE WAS DEAD!

Spoiler:
How could Drake be the LAST person to die in the movie, although he was the FIRST to be injected with that poison?

Spoiler:
Whistler is "conveniently" re-married, just so Goyer can explain Abigail being born out of wedlock? I highly doubt that was even taken into consideration before.

Spoiler:
The reaper dogs? 1. How did they get reaper DNA when Blade took out the entire Damaskino's clan in 2? 2. Why didn't they use the DNA on THEMSELVES?! 3. What would crossbreeding a DOG do for their species? That's worse than the ****ing Hulk dogs.

Spoiler:
The beginning of the film said "Drake" was unearthed in Syria. Ryan Reynolds said they found him in Iraq? Which is it, Davey?

Aside from contradictions, having no fluency with the original or sequel, being a virtual carbon copy of 2 minus the character devlopment, excitement, creative plot, action sequences, and anything else enjoyable, what made this film so good that you'd consider it to be the best R rated movie of the year, especially with "Collateral", "Man on Fire" AND "Eternal Sunshine" sharing the same rating, and ALL being NOTABLE better than "Blade: Trinity". [/B]

1. MOST of the franchises you mentioned took place in the 80's, there hasn't been many more franchises like that in at least 10 years.

2. Well I thought you would know better than to try and include those films on you little list of flops when they aren't even actual flops.

3. Like I said before Wesley Snipes is a difficult man to understand as are his decisions. When it comes down to it you can't compare Segal with Wesley, Wesley has had many more films hit theatres in the last six years than Seagal has and he has alot more on the way. Segal doesn't. I don't think Snipes' "days are numbered" because he is only 41 and Hollywood is still interested in him. Maybe in ten years "his days will be numbered" like Sylvester's days were, but right now Snipes is still going strong.

4. So we are "mad" because we have a difference of oppinion???

5. Its unfair in my oppinion to try and pick apart Blade:Trinity and mentioning what you think are major mistakes because literally every single film ever made has at least 1 mistake or more. There is always a mistake somewhere, whether it be in the story, plot, script, footage, or acting there is always a mistake. If your going to crucify this film then why not pick apart all the other Hollywood films?? The fact is that NO film is perfect.

6. I only said it was the best R film of the year because the poster earlier claimed it was better than Spider-Man 2 and I insisted they were two type of different films so I offered an alternate idea for him to take with his oppinion on both films. As for the films you mentioned, that is all purely your oppinion and mines differs from yours.

Yeh but all the Blade films have crap endings. The fact is, Blade was good and so what if the bad guy makes deals with him, they do it in the matrix and LOTR.

Matrix - Agent Smith toally let Neo win. (Favour)
LOTR - Saruman lets Gandalf live. (favour)

Savvy?

I didn't have any problems with it.

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
1. MOST of the franchises you mentioned took place in the 80's, there hasn't been many more franchises like that in at least 10 years.

2. Well I thought you would know better than to try and include those films on you little list of flops when they aren't even actual flops.

3. Like I said before Wesley Snipes is a difficult man to understand as are his decisions. When it comes down to it you can't compare Segal with Wesley, Wesley has had many more films hit theatres in the last six years than Seagal has and he has alot more on the way. Segal doesn't. I don't think Snipes' "days are numbered" because he is only 41 and Hollywood is still interested in him. Maybe in ten years "his days will be numbered" like Sylvester's days were, but right now Snipes is still going strong.

4. So we are "mad" because we have a difference of oppinion???

5. Its unfair in my oppinion to try and pick apart Blade:Trinity and mentioning what you think are major mistakes because literally every single film ever made has at least 1 mistake or more. There is always a mistake somewhere, whether it be in the story, plot, script, footage, or acting there is always a mistake. If your going to crucify this film then why not pick apart all the other Hollywood films?? The fact is that NO film is perfect.

6. I only said it was the best R film of the year because the poster earlier claimed it was better than Spider-Man 2 and I insisted they were two type of different films so I offered an alternate idea for him to take with his oppinion on both films. As for the films you mentioned, that is all purely your oppinion and mines differs from yours.

1) What does the production year have to do with a movies continuity?? Nothing! "Blade" fails to maintain any sense of chronology, and there's no disputing that.

2) I listed them, as they were the only bright spots in the past 5 years of Snipes' career to show I wasn't out to start a smear campaign.

3) I provided Snipes' movies from the last 5 years. His only hits were "Blade" films. Seagal, at 53 years old, is still doing 3 times as many films, and that's because he knows he can't be picky. Snipes should follow suit, regardless of whatever disposition he may bear.

4) Nope. I'm just trying to figure you out. You've got opinions, and no basis. I'm picking it apart to try and show you how your reasoning is off. You either watch and comprehend, or live in your bubble and always deal with opposition, namely, me.

5) I'm picking it apart to show you how your glorifying a movie that is abbhorently flawed, more so than the other films. Naturally, I'll be a lot more crucial of a film I thought was a failure.

6) It's more than my opinion. "Eternal Sunshine" has been nominated for a handful of Golden Globes, so, apparently, I'm not the only one that saw the genius of Kaufman in that one. If you're going to make vague claims about R rated movies, bone up first.

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
I didn't have any problems with it.

..and that's the difference between us. You'll settle for mediocrity and a cop out ending, where as I won't. Especially after being such a faithful fan to the franchise.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
1) What does the production year have to do with a movies continuity?? Nothing! "Blade" fails to maintain any sense of chronology, and there's no disputing that.

2) I listed them, as they were the only bright spots in the past 5 years of Snipes' career to show I wasn't out to start a smear campaign.

3) I provided Snipes' movies from the last 5 years. His only hits were "Blade" films. Seagal, at [b]53 years old, is still doing 3 times as many films, and that's because he knows he can't be picky. Snipes should follow suit, regardless of whatever disposition he may bear.

4) Nope. I'm just trying to figure you out. You've got opinions, and no basis. I'm picking it apart to try and show you how your reasoning is off. You either watch and comprehend, or live in your bubble and always deal with opposition, namely, me.

5) I'm picking it apart to show you how your glorifying a movie that is abbhorently flawed, more so than the other films. Naturally, I'll be a lot more crucial of a film I thought was a failure.

6) It's more than my opinion. "Eternal Sunshine" has been nominated for a handful of Golden Globes, so, apparently, I'm not the only one that saw the genius of Kaufman in that one. If you're going to make vague claims about R rated movies, bone up first.

..and that's the difference between us. You'll settle for mediocrity and a cop out ending, where as I won't. Especially after being such a faithful fan to the franchise. [/B]

1. After thinking it about it a little more I actually don't think the continuity was that horrible. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the new version of the serum was perhaps stronger than the last and maybe thats why they didn't bother to go that in depth with him evolving and resisting the serum??

2. It depends what you consider "bright spots." If you are speaking as far as the profit goes then yes I suppose the Blade films were probably the "bright spots."

3. He might be working on more films, but MOST of them don't make it to theatres as where Wesley's films do. Wesley doesn't take every role offered to him and in a way I do respect that.

4. My reasoning is not off, I enjoyed the film for what it was an action driven, comic book based film. It was never meant to be an Academy Award Winning drama that made you think about your life and morals like"Passion Of The Christ", it was made to be an entertaining action film with interesting characters. You are making it out to be more than it was suppose to be.

5. The errors you mentioned aren't even actual errors they are just things you THINK were wrong with the film. You thought it was failure because it didn't meet YOUR standards of a good film, which is a little misquided in my oppinion.

6. I'm not even going to debate which film was better because they are on two DIFFERENT genres of film. I already explained why I made that previous statement so maybe you should "bone up first."

7. You know nothing about the films I enjoy or deeply like. Making such an assumption of my tastes is completely without warrant. The ending was not a "cop out ending", they decided they wanted to leave the door open to the possibilities of a sequel and there is nothing wrong with that when you have a successful film franchise.

Lets drop the numbering bullshit, firstly.

The continuity isn't horrible, it's non-existant. "Blade 2" didn't begin in Moscow. "Blade 3" didn't pick up from London. They keep throwing what is SUPPOSED to be the end all be all of vampires his way, and it gets cheaper and less credible everytime, because we all know he'll win.

As for the serum, sure, I thought about it, but given he had the same effects as the last two movies, and like so many other things, it wasn't explained, I guess Goyer just abandonded that as well.

The errors you mentioned aren't even actual errors they are just things you THINK were wrong with the film.

Really? So, a dead man shapeshifting for the sake of a "haha, fooled you" ending, wasn't a mistake? The plot, being the vampires exposing Blade to the police, then after the jailbreak, the police NEVER PURSUING HIM AGAIN wasn't a mistake? Finding a tomb in Syria, then saying it was Iraq wasn't a mistake? Drake dying AFTER everyone else, although being the first injected wasn't a mistake?

These aren't mistakes, these are glaring errors because the writer/director was too busy with his MTV video styled cinematography, pose downs, and whatever other fluff you can imagine, instead of using that time to come up, I dunno, A COHERENT PLOT?! It's great for people who like eyecandy. Maybe it would have been a better silent movie.

The "R-Rating" debacle. I'm boned up. It looks like you're either backpeddling, or just forgot about the other rated R films released this year. You didn't compare it to any other movies to begin with, aside from "Spiderman", and that was for best comic book movie of the year.

"Blade: Trinity" ending was indeed a copout. Guess I have to explain the convenience in a DEAD MANS METAMORPHISIS? So, "Drake" traipses around for these hundreds of years, and is finally taken out by some black guy with a sword? How that ISN'T a copout to you is totally, totally beyond me, as is how it's a "satisfying" ending. It's a backhanded "open ending" for a franchise that is running in place, after offering up a carbon copy of 2.

In closing, no, I don't know what movies you like, but by the arguement you're presenting, you seem to be easily amused by toilet humor, gratified with mediocre fight scenes, and tolerant of poor acting, and casting.

That's fine with me. Just don't try and call out what I am sharing as some kind of bitter vengeful retort on either you or the filmmaker. I'm just pointing out what I think made the movie a total failure, aside from the obvious..which apparently isn't as obvious to you. That's a shame.

By the way...I'm not out to get you, and if anything I said came across as a personal attack, I apologize. Just want to make that clear.

I heard it was awesome, I cant wait to see it.

Well, pretty much everyone I went with agreed that it was Ok-ish, but not really that good.

It was the bloody shameless iPod pushing that ruined it for me. I never take movies seriously when they become a vehicle for the next big overpriced consumer craze. Just in time for Xmas too.

Better than Spider-Man 2? You must be joking.

Since when is slo-motion camerawork innovative and fresh?

The fact that films lack CONTINUITY along the same epic lines as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back To The Future and so on from the 80's shows how misguided the industry has been for a long time now. Only Lord Of The Rings can claim that same award today.

And when poeple were laughing at the toilet humour, me and my friends would turn simoultaneously, look at ecah other, and shake our heads.

Some of the humour WAS quite funny, but it was a bit over the top and executed poorly. I mean, if one characters entire script is spouting off one liners every time we see him, then there's a good chance at least ONE joke will hit a nerve with someone. Rather than writing universal, concise and above all, genuinely clever jokes, the writer preffered to fire a minigun and pepper the audience with gags until he hit his target.

And, the ending was pants, I have to admit. The series needed Blade to die. It would at least provide SOME novelty to the film, and make it stand proud as a legitimate chapter in the Trilogy.

People who think this film was awesome and one of the best they've ever seen clearly haven't seen an awful lot of films.
And The Reaper dogs were downright confusing. They say they are Vampire Dogs - yet they are clearly Reapers. Do they even remember Blade II?

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
The continuity isn't horrible, it's non-existant. "Blade 2" didn't begin in Moscow. "Blade 3" didn't pick up from London. They keep throwing what is SUPPOSED to be the end all be all of vampires his way, and it gets cheaper and less credible everytime, because we all know he'll win.

As for the serum, sure, I thought about it, but given he had the same effects as the last two movies, and like so many other things, it wasn't explained, I guess Goyer just abandonded that as well.

Really? So, a dead man shapeshifting for the sake of a "haha, fooled you" ending, wasn't a mistake? The plot, being the vampires exposing Blade to the police, then after the jailbreak, the police NEVER PURSUING HIM AGAIN wasn't a mistake? Finding a tomb in Syria, then saying it was Iraq wasn't a mistake? Drake dying AFTER everyone else, although being the first injected wasn't a mistake?

These aren't mistakes, these are glaring errors because the writer/director was too busy with his MTV video styled cinematography, pose downs, and whatever other fluff you can imagine, instead of using that time to come up, I dunno, A COHERENT PLOT?! It's great for people who like eyecandy. Maybe it would have been a better silent movie.

The "R-Rating" debacle. I'm boned up. It looks like you're either backpeddling, or just forgot about the other rated R films released this year. You didn't compare it to any other movies to begin with, aside from "Spiderman", and that was for best comic book movie of the year.

"Blade: Trinity" ending was indeed a copout. Guess I have to explain the convenience in a DEAD MANS METAMORPHISIS? So, "Drake" traipses around for these hundreds of years, and is finally taken out by some black guy with a sword? How that ISN'T a copout to you is totally, totally beyond me, as is how it's a "satisfying" ending. It's a backhanded "open ending" for a franchise that is running in place, after offering up a carbon copy of 2.

In closing, no, I don't know what movies you like, but by the arguement you're presenting, you seem to be easily amused by toilet humor, gratified with mediocre fight scenes, and tolerant of poor acting, and casting.

That's fine with me. Just don't try and call out what I am sharing as some kind of bitter vengeful retort on either you or the filmmaker. I'm just pointing out what I think made the movie a total failure, aside from the obvious..which apparently isn't as obvious to you. That's a shame.

[b]By the way...I'm not out to get you, and if anything I said came across as a personal attack, I apologize. Just want to make that clear. [/B]

Well Blade battles vampires all around the WORLD so its no surprise that each film took place in different locations or countries. Of course Blade is going to win he is a super hero, when have has there ever been a film where the hero dies and humanity is destroyed.........never.

Perhaps the serum was explained in one of the deleted scenes. The one thing that I will say is that they did make a mistake by removing certain scenes and alternate endings.

I didn't think it was a mistake, its based on a comic book where things like that happen often. You say the police NEVER persued him again? If I remember correctly they did attempt to capture him again at the end of the film, but failed. The third was perhaps the only mistake. He was Dracula which means he was different from EVERY other vampire. He himself said that he was unique, so he couldn't be killed as easily. Thats why he took a while longer to die.

Overall I can honestly say that there was maybe 1 error out of all the quote "glaring errors" you mentioned. One error isn't actually that bad.

I wasn't trying to compare Blade:Trinity with any other film to begin with. I did not compare Blade:Trinity with Spider-Man 2 that was another poster.

So what your saying is that you find the fact that Dracula was killed by an African-American wrong or not right??? It personally makes no difference to me what the ethnic code or race of the person who killed Dracula was. Frankly your statement sounds a bit offensive.

NO, I am not easily amused by quote toilet humor and what you think was mediocre fight scenes, poor acting and casting. I did not go watch this film for the humor, I went to watch the film as a whole. As a fan of the franchise and the comic books, I enjoyed the film. I think you might be taking this film too seriously and keep forgetting that it is based on a comic book and NOT real life and the world we live in. The film's acting was ok for its subject, it wasn't suppose to have Oscar worthy acting in the film just enough to illustrate the characters.

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet

I didn't think it was a mistake, its based on a comic book where things like that happen often. You say the police NEVER persued him again? If I remember correctly they did attempt to capture him again at the end of the film, but failed. The third was perhaps the only mistake. He was Dracula which means he was different from EVERY other vampire. He himself said that he was unique, so he couldn't be killed as easily. Thats why he took a while longer to die.

Overall I can honestly say that there was maybe 1 error out of all the quote "glaring errors" you mentioned. One error isn't actually that bad.

So what your saying is that you find the fact that Dracula was killed by an African-American wrong or not right??? It personally makes no difference to me what the ethnic code or race of the person who killed Dracula was. Frankly your statement sounds a bit offensive.

NO, I am not easily amused by quote toilet humor and what you think was mediocre fight scenes, poor acting and casting.

Awwww..c'mon.

The "police" did show up at the very end. By "police", I mean the "law enforcement that just so happened to be comprised of vampires". Which was when they saw "Drake" laying there, which makes no sense. Why? Because Drake having been injected should have turned to ash, if not return to his vampire form, in addition to, you know, being dead and all, would have been taken in by the coroner, correct? But, when we get to the coroner scene, it's supposedly "Blade". They didn't see Blade at the murder scene, so how/when did they collect Blade's body, when he wasn't even at the scene? Which BEGS the question, again..how did Drake shape shift into Blade when Drake was deaaaaaad!. Riddle me that.

That, my friend, is a glaring error. You see how annoying this gets? Seriously? There's plenty more errors than what I listed. What would be your rebuttal for the others though? They went totally ignored for the sake of "the action".

Gawd, let's turn it into a race issue, and not the fact that Blade was nothing more than a guy with some poison and some upper body strength, yet he alone took down this "vampire" GOD with ease! It was so uncredible, because Blade was nothing compared to this character! How could you not see this as an unfair match-up, and some stupid racial swipe.

Eh, no. I'm not being too critical of anything. I know it's just a movie, one riddled with inaccuracies, sloppy camera work, uninspired performances, miscasting, yadda yadda yadda. Tell me, honestly. Did you think Parker Posey was a convincing ruthless female vampyress bll breaker? Did you find Hannibal King (Reynolds) intimidating? Did you think Wesley Snipes was the one out of place in this movie? Did you appreciate the uncharacteristic toilet humor and dialogue? Did you like how Goyer abandonded major storyline elements for action and recycled fight scenes? Did you like the totally UN-menacing "Drake" character, and his pathetic lines. Did you like the high school geared script? The product placement? The abandonded characters, plots, story development, and total LACK of character devlopment and evolution?

I mean, if you did, great. About 75% of the people liked this movie the first time around, when it was called "Blade 2". Although, it didn't possess 1/2 the failed comedy and "horror" this one so happily provided.

Those things aren't opinions, they are called "the obvious", that is, obvious to those who have watched the movies time and time again, and can smell the inconsistancies, and stench of a movie that has no relation to the other films, other than the title character, which was sadly out of place.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
The "police" did show up at the very end. By "police", I mean the "law enforcement that just so happened to be comprised of vampires". Which was when they saw "Drake" laying there, which makes no sense. Why? Because Drake having been injected should have turned to ash, if not return to his vampire form, in addition to, you know, being dead and all, would have been taken in by the coroner, correct? But, when we get to the coroner scene, it's supposedly "Blade". They didn't see Blade at the murder scene, so how/when did they collect Blade's body, when he wasn't even at the scene? Which BEGS the question, again..how did Drake shape shift into Blade when Drake was deaaaaaad!. Riddle me that.

That, my friend, is a glaring error. You see how annoying this gets? Seriously? There's plenty more errors than what I listed. What would be your rebuttal for the others though? They went totally ignored for the sake of "the action".

Gawd, let's turn it into a race issue, and not the fact that Blade was nothing more than a guy with some poison and some upper body strength, yet he alone took down this "vampire" GOD with ease! It was so uncredible, because Blade was nothing compared to this character! How could you not see this as an unfair match-up, and some stupid racial swipe.

Eh, no. I'm not being too critical of anything. I know it's just a movie, one riddled with inaccuracies, sloppy camera work, uninspired performances, miscasting, yadda yadda yadda. Tell me, honestly. Did you think Parker Posey was a convincing ruthless female vampyress bll breaker? Did you find Hannibal King (Reynolds) intimidating? Did you think Wesley Snipes was the one out of place in this movie? Did you appreciate the uncharacteristic toilet humor and dialogue? Did you like how Goyer abandonded major storyline elements for action and recycled fight scenes? Did you like the totally UN-menacing "Drake" character, and his pathetic lines. Did you like the high school geared script? The product placement? The abandonded characters, plots, story development, and total LACK of character devlopment and evolution?

I mean, if you did, great. About 75% of the people liked this movie the first time around, when it was called "Blade 2". Although, it didn't possess 1/2 the failed comedy and "horror" this one so happily provided.

Those things aren't opinions, they are called "the obvious", that is, obvious to those who have watched the movies time and time again, and can smell the inconsistancies, and stench of a movie that has no relation to the other films, other than the title character, which was sadly out of place.

He did mention somthing about fighting with honor and something about a final gift. I think it was a mark of respect because he knew that blade needed to be safe to continue the vampire race. So when blade gives into the thirst he will create a new race. The race they are looking fof. Drake needed Blade alive and not a hunted man. Drake had just about enough energy left to transform into Blade and when he died, he turned back.

It was an unfair match-up between Blade and Dracula, but isn't every battle in every movie that involves a hero fighting a main villain an unfair match-up?? That is what makes it interesting, the fact that the odds are against the hero and in favor of the villain. If the villain were weak and less powerful than it would not be interesting to watch them fight. It has been the main ingredient of every single story worth telling, it traces back to the most ancient of stories of David and Goliath and still is the main point in every action film today.

1. Parker was ok.
2. Ryan/Hannibal was not suppose to be intimidating.
3. No I do not.
4. I appreciated the humor, not neccessarily all of it, there were some jokes I did not laugh at and some I did laugh at.
5. You might think Goyer abandoned major story elements like the serum, but it was self explanatory.
6. I think the character of Drake was menacing especially as his un-shape-shifted self.
7. I didn't think it was a "high school geared script", maybe not the way I would have done it, but still not as bad as you make it seem.
8. I did not enjoy the product placement, but yet again it was necessary to get some of the financing for the film.
9. I disagree with the last few. There were many deleted scenes including fight scenes involving the Nightstalkers and werewolves plus countless others and alternate ending which should fill in any gap in the character development and evolution. (at least for me)

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
He did mention...
It was an unfair match-up ..

K, knew all of that. Just another obvious "final battle" where the hero wins, regardless. Like the last two "Blade" movies formula. Break tradition for a while, kill the "hero", and make it a little less forumlaic and predictible.

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet

1. Parker was ok.
2. Ryan/Hannibal was not suppose to be intimidating.
3. No I do not.
4. I appreciated the humor, not neccessarily all of it, there were some jokes I did not laugh at and some I did laugh at.
5. You might think Goyer abandoned major story elements like the serum, but it was self explanatory.
6. I think the character of Drake was menacing especially as his un-shape-shifted self.
7. I didn't think it was a "high school geared script", maybe not the way I would have done it, but still not as bad as you make it seem.
8. I did not enjoy the product placement, but yet again it was necessary to get some of the financing for the film.
9. I disagree with the last few. There were many deleted scenes including fight scenes involving the Nightstalkers and werewolves plus countless others and alternate ending which should fill in any gap in the character development and evolution. (at least for me)

I'll state my opinions on the following.

1) You could literally watch Parker Posey act. She was clueless.
2) With a "**** You" name badge, a ripped physique, and a smart ass temper, it was implied this guy was a major character. Wrong.
3) I did. He was a VH1 Classic viewer at a taping of TRL.
4) The majority of it was tasteless, crass, and again, totally uncharacteristic of the franchise.
5) No, he did. Plenty of times. Serum, needing Drake's DNA sample for the virus and never getting it, the police until the end, the public smear campaign, etc.
6) Drake was more metro than menacing. Only thing he could look intimidating on is a Milan runway.
7) You're right, not High School. Just lazy, and immature. Same thing.
8) Necessary? It was blatant, tasteless, and totally crass. I honestly don't think New Line "needed" the help.
9)Deleted scenes....what? Doesn't that say something to you? That the dleted scenes are, according to you, actually INTREGAL parts to the story? What kind of writer/director sacrifices their STORY for a bunch of blaise eye candy?

Not a professional one. Atleast not one that cares about their final product, but this is Goyer we're talking about.

Something else for you to chew on, which goes back to the inconsistancies of Blade's travels; exactly how does Blade travel across the globe to kill vampires? He can't fly? He can't teleport? I guess he drives a car, although he can't take prolonged trips outdoors?

This is a prime example of why superhero movies are of what we call "static" characters. Spidey is confined to NY, Batman to Gotham City, Superman..NY, although he can fly inconspiciously. Blade, who HAS to stay out of the public light? Your guess is as good as mine, and is anything BUT self evident.

WTF is this Essays 'R' Us or something?

We're debating the film. Join right in.