Personally, while I liked Blade 2, I thought it couldn't hold a candle to the original Blade film. And don't get me started on Trinity. Anyway, to the people that like this over the original Blade film: please explain to me why. I seriously would like to know.
---------------
People of the IMDB forums: Please learn how to type!
I prefer the original. Frost was fun.
Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?
I think story wise they're about the same but in terms of visuals and style Blade II is better. I also found Nomak to be terrifying whereas with Deacon Frost I just looked at him as some cocky young looking guy who just wanted power, nothing to be worried about on face value. Nomak on the other hand was freaky on the outside and even worse on the inside.
I have an unbelievably long ignore list.
I like both and while I prefer the more serious approach and attitude of the 1st (there was still humor) the 2nd is more fun and overall had much better fight sequences. Just compare the Nomak end fight with the Blood God. No contest IMO.
Tell me something... are you fellas really with the Internal Revenue Service? - The Omega Man
Oh, kind of like comparing the two Hellboy movies that del Toro also directed, in which the first had a darker & grittier atmosphere, while the second had more fun with the material by going up the ante with the action & humor, with both offering really solid stories in their own right.
shareBlade I for me was like the impact Dr. J has on Shaq. There are more refined movies since, but Blade was the first comic book movie to really have me completely thrilled. I actually like "The Crow" equally, but when even though I saw it 4 years earlier, I only then knew of it as a posthumous Brandon Lee Halloween action movie. Didn't know about the O'Barr/graphic novel connection until much later. I really enjoyed Blade II but I remember initially feeling weird about the different vibe that GtD gave.
-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®
I see.
shareMore epic scope, interesting storyline.
I like 2 over Blade..... Blade is a good starting point, but it just felt lacking somewhat and almost B-list movie standards.
Blade II went to a whole new level..... it was dark, yet more comic-book like!
Fact they filmed it in Prague made it all the better, and suited the tone of the movie.
Also making Blade have to work with the Blood Pack had so much potential for story and quirky little comments here and there (some of the best parts are the one liners in this movie).
CGI is bad in places, but I think that is down to a element of CGI still being in its infency and probably the best they could afford for this movie.
Basically took all the good stuff from Blade, added in a few side kicks that were good for laughs, and added a story that was not a repeat of the first one.
I marginally prefer the first Blade (like you, I won't say anything else on Blade:Trinity). The effects were superior in the second film (some of the exploding vampires in the first one looked like cartoon haemorrhoids) but I preferred the original's overall story and choreography during the action sequences. The second film also loses points for the rock music montages and constant and tiring character betrayals (apart from the humourless Blade and a back-from-the-undead Whistler, and what an annoying contrivance that was, there was no one to root for in Blade 2; at least the original had Dr. Karen Jensen).
shareThere are parts of the first Blade that just kind of drag to me. That and I just couldn't take Stephen Dorff 100% seriously as a threat regardless of how hard the film tried. Blade 2 is just full of awesomeness and tension at every turn: What in the world is with these Reaper guys? Can Blade trust The Bloodpack? What happens next? The entire movie makes you want to see what happens next.
share