Hacker Cinema
Blade
1998 · Film · 121 min
Part of Blade Collection
Directed by Stephen Norrington
The Daywalker known as "Blade" - a half-vampire, half-mortal man - becomes the protector of humanity against an underground army of vampires.
1 positive16 neutralfrom 17 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
21 comments on Hacker News
> Even in movies where everything is explained e.g. in Blade where they will have a scene where someone explains how a weapon works, I've noticed in a recent viewing of the movie that people forgot the explanations of the gadgets he has. In Blade they have a James Bond / Q like conversation between the characters to say "this weapons does X against vampires" and sets the weapon for later on in the movie and people forgot about it.
That’s because you’re seeing the rule of cool in action. The explanation itself makes the item interesting enough that the (2 seconds) setup gets the audience excited up watch a grenade blow a vampire’s head off.
I would argue that it is the opposite. People expect an info dump and everything explained to them. I remember watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier (I think it was the last movie I watched in theatre) and pretty much everything was explained to the audience. Guy Richie has character intro screens like Street Fighter in his movies.
Even in movies where everything is explained e.g. in Blade where they will have a scene where someone explains how a weapon works, I've noticed in a recent viewing of the movie that people forgot the explanations of the gadgets he has. In Blade they have a James Bond / Q like conversation between the characters to say "this weapons does X against vampires" and sets the weapon for later on in the movie and people forgot about it.
I watched "The Mothman Prophecies" and quite a lot of the movie was up to interpretation and there was many small things in the film that you might overlook e.g. there is a scene in a mirror where the reflection in the mirror is out of sync with his movements, suggesting something supernatural is occurring and he hasn't realised it yet. While I love the movie, there is very few movies like that.
If you watch movies before the 90s. A huge number of movies will have characters communicate efficiently and often realistically.
> these weird complaints about diversity in modern movies
You're twisting my words to move the narrative goalposts. Nobody complained about diversity in movies (otherwise I wouldn't have praised Rush Hour and Blade). The complaint was about US movies today being solely built around a toxic form of diversity checkbox ticking, masquerading as entertainment, which is not interesting to anyone outside the US crowds of movie goers who care more about seeing $CURRENT_DAY political issues in their movies instead of recognizing entertainment as being fantasy escapism, which causes the US to loose soft power abroad, and judging by how they flop at the box office, US viewers aren't interested in paying for this slop either.
>most of your good old days classics examples are in fact "slop based on established IP".
Source that they're slop?
>but Star Wars prequels given as a positive example while complaining about 30 year old IP slop?
The prequels were considered shit at the time because they were compared to the original masterpieces, but compared to the modern Star Wars that Disney shits out today, they're basically gold. They ended up ageing like wine due to how bad we have it today.
>You may also have missed the subtle subtext in Star Wars about fascism.
What's your point here?
Except American movies(and entertainment in general) haven't been good for about 10 years now, it's all slop based on established IP from 20-30 years ago.
When I was a kid growing up in the post communist 90-00s, we were going nearly weekly to the cinema to watch the latest American movies: Blade, Shrek, Toy Story, The Matrix trilogy, LotR trilogy, American Pie, Batman trilogy, Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, Fast & Furious, X-Men, Spider-Man, Star Wars, Scary Movie, Rush Hour, etc
We couldn't get enough of US entertainment, while now everyone here avoids the new US releases like the plague since it's only cash grabs injected with $CURRENT_DAY identity politics, diversity box ticking based on focus group testing, resulting in sterile, predictable, zero-humor, zero-edge, zero-creativity slop that's not even worth pirating.
Americans have no idea how much soft power they lost worldwide by forcing their identity politics and ideologies in entertainment. Japanese anime and Koran movies and TV shows now run rings around the US entertainment industry.
Steering wheel security inspired by the sword from the movie Blade would be fun.
But really seems like one needs to deploy additional security measures in- and outside the car to avoid theft. What are the options?
[not the OP]
I find it quite amusing what many people (including myself sometimes) have a pretty blurry memory about when we moved from VHS.
But I think it mostly contributes on what for some people VHS were a dominant media for quite a while, because they didn't had the means to see the digital media.
It's easier to understand what the first [commercially] successful DVD player was PlayStation 2, which became available ~2001. Before that DVDs were quite a costly[0] endeavour.
But at the same time people with the access to a computer (and a local 'everything for $15' totally-legit-shop) had the benefits of DivX ;) releases on a plain CD-ROMs, which every home computer had.
Some anecdata: I first seen Blade (1998) on VHS, but The Matrix (1999) on DivX rip, yet (I think) Spirited Away (2001) on VHS. I frequented a local VHS rental (because a friend worked there and so it places it up to 2002? 2001?) so I had seen a lot of films on VHS, but again, by 2002 it was a meme how people searching for XXX on DC++ got XXX (2002) instead.
[0] https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/your-1st-dvd-player-vs-1st-blu-ray-player-how-much-and-when-did-you-buy.273256/
Nobody's is against diversity when done right and fairly. But that's not what Disney or Google is doing. They're forcing their own warped version of diversity and you have no choice to refuse, but if you do speak up then you're racist.
Blade was a black main character over 20 years ago and it was a hit. Beverly Hills Cop also had a black main character 40 years ago and was also a hit. The movie Hackers from 30 years ago had LGBT and gender fluid characters and it was also a hit.
But what Disney and Google took from this is that now absolutely everything should be forcibly diverse, LGBTQ and gender fluid, whether the story needs it or not, otherwise it's racist. And that's where people have a problem.
Nobody has problems seeing new black characters on screen, but a lot of people will see a problem in back vikings for example which is what Gemini was spitting out.
And if we go the forced diversity route for the sake of modern diversity argument, why is Google Gemini only replacing traditional white roles like vikings with diverse races, but never others like Zulu warriors or Samurais with whites? Google's anti-white racism is clear as daylight, and somehow that's OK because diversity?
That's true.
But regarding nostalgia and colours I can tell you a personal anecdote:
I first saw Blade (1998, yes, that one with Snipes) on a pirated VHS copy on a not new Funai recorder on a 14" SHARP TV.
It was a dark, grainy film, blue on black, with occasional red and white splashes. Visually it was close to Sin City.
Years later I stuck on it on a public TV. It was so bright it's almost made sense for Snipes protagonist to wear sunglasses everywhere - it was bright as day even at night scenes.
I can't watch "a proper" Blade, but not because it's quite a shitty movie (it's fine for it's niche) but because I first saw a dark, noir-like action film.
And we watched Babe (1995) on that set too, but I needed to constantly correct the tracking because the video was out of sync all the time. Years later I found about Macrovision and years after that I put two and two together.
I make music for film, and I edit video in relation to that work often.
I can recall several years of having to learn how to do things in so many different applications that dictated the end product because the applications were very complex to use, and quite time consuming. I couldn't understand how friends were paid less than application developers (Around 60k annually) to do some of the most impressive VFX things I've observed in commercials and movies, and it was very hard for them to find work even when they had great portfolios.
Fast forward to now, there are mobile apps that can edit videos, and add effects, color grading, etc to videos. I can literally run a video editing session in my car that outputs better product far more quickly than I used to be able to do with $2k software... Even mobile software that can work with object files... Making the process of creation easier will likely be the best field for innovation moving forward. Making things more simple will also save studios and VFX editors tons of money, time and grief.
TikTok formats are dominating the entertainment world right now, VFX movies are beginning to look disingenuous because they either overdo effects, or they cut corners and make things low quality, relying too much on the power of celebrity to push the movie forward... Viewers are also worn out by actors trying to take cues on green screen sets, it comes across often as far too staged, or far too busy visually.
Movies where the VFX trump everything else end up being weak on writing and emotional composition in my opinion. Movies that rely on celebrity become very weak on VFX... I think good movies come from a great script that can be used to plan everything that comes thereafter, and then the quality of the final product depends on the vision of the director and execution of the team involved.
Movies like Blade, Hancock, Ant Man, and even more recent work like "The Boys" are some of my personal favorites because VFX are not the primary hitch to the stories... Avatar completely lost me, even though far more money was spent to make it. VFX is a support tool to great films, when it becomes the primary aspect, the script suffers and budgets balloon, and the worst part is that movies take 5 years to make instead of just taking one.
I agree with some other commenters; this is a lot of cherry picking. You could just as easily compare Nosferatu (1922) with Blade (1998) with Twilight (2008) and ask why culture gets happier and less serious as time goes on, “aren’t we all becoming like Brave New World???” Comparing Adam West’s Batman with today’s Batman is just lazy. They’re apples and oranges at this point: different genres, different climates (today the more “fun” stuff is Marvel), different film technology. And if we want to get into it, it’s not “depression” that’s trendy; it’s realism. 60’s Batman dealt with all the same “dark” themes as current Batman: mafia, crime, trauma and grief, etc. But the visual portrayal was different because it was a “comic book” before comic books adaptations were commonplace blockbusters. That doesn’t mean all of 1960s cinema is somehow a comic book movie. Hello: Psycho (1960), Dr. Strangelove (1964), The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (1966).
> and the special effects didn't seem that much less obvious to me than they would today
While I understand where you come from, there is still a difference of the medium.
Eg: I have seen Blade (1998) on a VHS first, except it was a pirated copy of a pirated copy. It was a very dark, almost noir toned story, somewhat visually akin to Sin City. Years later, when I saw in a decent quality on a (still analog at that time) TV I didn't recognized it first. And again, years later on a digital TV it became just a bunch of ads for Snipes on a highly lit backdrops and ugly CGI. Somewhat similar, though not that jarring, is my story with Babylon 5. Even when it aired I could see the effects and CGI (they were pretty obvious most of the time) but now the difference of quality (and 38" vs 14") sometimes distracts from immersing to the story.
BTW only with Avatar I finally couldn't reliably distinguish where the CGI starts or ends, but it was a top notch one. I still see the "lame" CGI (especially when a fake motion blur is cranked up to 11) even on a high budget films, like all that comic book adaptations.
Dick Tracy might have been the best comic book film of the 90s; I thought it was quite well done, and where it failed it mostly failed by being true to its source material.
What is its competition; Judge Dredd? Captain America(1990)? The 90s Batman sequels? Now that I wrote this, I realize Blade was also a comic originally, but I liked Tracy better.
> Like when black actors get representation in media previously dominated by white people, to me that is just a good thing, but I see reports that many think this is “wokeness”, which they think is bad.
In the 90s Will Smith starred in Independence Day, and absolutely no one complained (as far as I know) because Will Smith is awesome and he deserved the role. See also Blade from the same era.
People get upset when it's clear that a person has been chosen for a role/position just because of their skin colour/gender/sexuality rather than their talent. I can't actually think of any movies that have done this, but plenty of TV shows (Star Trek Discovery).
Obviously some roles require the person to be of a certain race for it to appear authentic. Lots of older films used white actors for middle Eastern roles, which is seen as "white washing" and is therefore wrong. The latest Ghost in the Shell race swapped the main character to be American, and was rightly called out for doing so.
Basically we should be allowed to criticize both ways...
> I do think there is a kernel of truth to what you're saying, but I don't think it's right to dismiss entirely the fact that representation IS important.
This idea is insidious.
Firstly people have to remember fiction is fiction. The reason why the first few seasons of Game of Thrones was compelling was because the world they lived in didn't have any modern sensibilities in it. The more they threw in modern sensibilities the worse the show got (thought the action scenes for the most part got better).
There was some show recently where Black slaves in the USA had taken power over the whites and a white KKK member from another dimension somehow got transported there. Some decried the show and wanted it banned. I thought it sounded excellent, because it was soooo divorced from reality. Same with the "Man from the High Castle". The setting in which the enemy won WWII was compelling.
Secondly just randomly pushing people into roles for the sake of representation ends up cheapening any genuine effort. The Wire was brilliant because the huge number of black people being in the show made sense. At the time I didn't actually notice that most of the cast was black.
You know what the end result is. It made me notice skin colour when I didn't used to and made me start to resent any effort (no matter how genuine) because I know there is probably some quota involved somewhere to pander to a demographic.
> Historically, "rich white people" have been in control of the media, so it's great to see this group becoming more self aware.
It isn't self awareness though. They are projecting their prejudices onto the rest of us. This includes places where it just isn't relevant and makes almost no sense.
How dare they project their prejudices onto me in an effort to absolve themselves of guilt, then have the gall to tell me that I am the one with the problem when I object to it. Fuck them!
I clearly remember when I decided I wouldn't watch anymore broadcast television (this was about 8 years ago now).
There was a show hosted by Scottish Comedian Frankie Boyle that was infamous for his offensive comedy. On that show there was a rich Canadian woman on the TV telling people in the audience that all men had done through the centuries was raping and beating women.
Then there was a black musician called "Akala" telling me the British Empire institutions were guilty of perpetuating racism. He seemed to be obilvious to the fact that he was on a British Institution being broadcasted to every home in the country.
Other the gross oversimplification of history. I had nothing to do with it (nor did my family as they were all very poor). It would be like blaming today's Germans for what Hitler did. It is absolutely disgusting.
You know what the end result of this is? It made me hugely suspicious of any claim of sexual misconduct or racism. It is the classic story of the boy that cried wolf.
> We should let people with compelling stories tell their stories! Now that streaming is the norm, there's room for everyone, now that we're not limited to only the stories which are marketable for primetime.
Maybe I am getting old but I remember a lot of this already happening. I am not saying it was perfect and I don't disagree with it in principle.
Recently "Black Panther" was released. "The first black super hero" they said. People seemed to forget Wesley Snipes played Blade for 3 movies (starting in 1997) and they were the first Marvel Movies and made the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe viable as it showed that a comic book property could be successful.
Before that we had the "There are no female action heroes" they said. Forgetting all thrillers in the past with heroines, a whole movie franchise called Aliens, Cherry 2000, Nikita, Tank Girl, Buffy and a bunch of other movies I have probably forgotten about where the woman had taken charge of the situation and won the day.
People increasingly think that the world before they were born didn't exist.
Otzi looks remarkably similar to Kris Kristofferson
http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Abraham-Whistler-Blade-movie-Kris-Kristofferson-a.jpg
I wonder if this is an indication that modern people from Scandinavia, where half of Kristofferson's ancestors are from, are more similar to older European populations, while the European South and Centre saw more change through migrations.
Interestingly, my sense has been that Netflix's recommendation engine does a poorer job now than it did 10 years ago. I always assumed that it was because they used to use fairly straightforward collaborative filtering, and now they seem to be heavily focused on looking for stuff that's somehow cosmetically similar to other stuff I've watched.
So, like, instead of saying, "You liked Nosferatu? Well, other people who liked Nosferatu also liked Ran, so let's suggest that," it now goes, "Hey, that's a vampire movie! How about Blade?"
Breaking Bad is laced with way more profanity and graphic violence than you could swing for a PG-13 rating. It's not True Blood, but then, The Matrix and Blade are two R-rated movies with vastly different severity of content.
Plenty of movies have time-lapsed scenes of the sun going up and coming down. Vampire movies are a notable example, because of the significance of the sun. I'm pretty sure "Blade" had a couple of examples.
Films featuring people trapped and forced to survive in the desert are probably also good candidates. And some romances where the couple watch the sun set on a beach, or possibly watch it rise having had that "first talk" all through the night.
The last time I whined about this kind of thing, someone on HN patiently explained to me that this is the "invisible hand" at work. A certain number of people click a spam link, ignore the content, and try another link. Some click through on an ad, that's a win for Google. Some get disgusted with stuff like this, Mahalo, and so forth and those users defect to another engine.
As long as the increase in revenue outweighs the loss of users, Google has no incentive to change. In fact, they have an incentive to make their search "worse."
There is a stereotype of an MBA that runs a business with a spreadsheet, firing people that embody the company's institutional knowledge and outsourcing their "function" to body shops in another time zone. The stereotypical numbers-driven MBA carefully manipulates prices and product supply to maximize revenues, balancing price discrimination against the loss of customers.
The end result is a company that is hostile to its customers. Cell phone companies and airlines come to mind. I would compare this to Google, except it's even worse in a sense, because users are not Google's customers. Advertisers are Google's customers.
There must be voices within Google arguing passionately for improving the quality of its results from the user's perspective. I imagine that the response from management can be taken straight out of the movie "Blade:"
For fucks sake, these people are our food, not our allies.
It is cool. I once ran OpenGLForums.com and when the movie Blade was really popular, I ran a contest to make a 3D movie programmatically about Blade and the winner would win the sword (or a replica, rather) from the movie. Unfortunately, it turns out shipping a weapon is much more difficult than it appears, especially overseas. I ended up just sending the guy the value of the sword and kept it for myself.
Regardless, this is a cool contest and has a cool prize.
I saw this all the time when I worked at a movie theater 12 years ago.
Vampires and Blade (1998) Mighty Joe Young and some other ape movie. Two horror movies with bats. Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line.
It happens over and over again. A semi-biggish movie and another that gets forgotten.