Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Fave Movie Monster Franchise:
Darcula 0%
Werewolf 0%
Frankenstein 25%
Mummy 0%
Godzilla 25%
Anything with Tor Johnson in it 25%
Anything with John Leguizano in it 25%

Votes: 4

 Blade II And The Twilight Of Science

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 01, 2002
 Comments:
Note: The following writeup contains plot spoilers. Do not read it if you have not seen the film yet, and wish to experience the special magic of following the storyline of Blade II (an experience similar to that of receiving a sharp blow to the head after drinking 20 ounces of Robitussin) on your own.
diaries

More diaries by Chocolate Milkshake
Which is more important?
Myron Schell, inventor of "first post!", dead at 47
Christmas is child abuse
Fellowship Of The Rings Comparative Movie Review
The Consolation of Melancholy
The Lesson of Black Hawk Down
9/11 and Class Conflict
I'm very disappointed with Noam Chomsky
Thoughts on Lee Harvey Oswald's widow's affair with his Brother
Hmmmmm...
The Time To Act Is Now
Human Nature (the movie) and a question about hair
Four Spider-Man movies reviewed
Can't Sleep? Blame God.
Don't Do What Scooby-Doo Does
Summer Blockbuster Showdown!!!
The best movie of 2002 so far has been Guillermo Del Toro's Blade II, an entertaining hunk of camp/schlock science fiction B-movie action. Blade II stars Wesley Snipes, The Thinking Man's Bruce Campbell, as Blade, a half-human, half-vampire ("Daywalker") vampire hunter, who deals out destruction to his undead foes, and anyone else stupid enough to get in his way, with an intriguing combination of automatic weapons, samurai swords, kung-fu, and pro-wrestling moves (yes, you read that correctly). The storyline, such as there is, has Blade joining forces with representatives of something called "The Ruling Order of Vampires" (they're unionized! I'm glad to see someone still is.) to destroy a really nasty mutant strain of vampire called (for no discernable reason whatsoever) "reapers".

The whole film is gloriously bad, the sort of thing that Ed Wood would have made if he'd been handed fifty million dollars. At one point, Blade teams up with a group of leather-clad vampires called, meta-jokingly enough, "The Bloodpack", the members of which have nicknames like "Lighthammer", "Verlaine" (a woman!), "Snowman", and "Priest". Of course, none of these names correspond in any way to any physical or behavioral characteristics of the individuals bearing them, but by this point, if you're haven't fled the multiplex, you won't give a good goddamn what's going on. Best thing to do is just sit back and enjoy the vampire-killin' fun and high-camp dialogue (near the end of the film, one character, dying and infected by a reaper, says "I want to die while I'm still a vampire". The whole scene is played totally deadpan, for pathos. Of course, you couldnt've beaten the grin off my face with a shovel). One interesting side effect of this "look ma, no narrative!" school of filmmaking is that the "twist" near the end of the film comes as a genuine surprise. The sudden reemergence of the plot an hour and a half into the movie comes as a real jolt to the viewer, who has by this point long since abandoned any hope for a coherent storyline, and has settled for a pleasant evening of spectacular fight scenes.

What is most intriguing about Blade II, however, is what this postmodern vampire flick says about our age's attitude toward science and the supernatural. The classic Hammer horror films made during the '50s and '60s - the height of the cold war - can be seen as a reflection of that age's anxiety toward science, particularly the threat of atomic holocaust. Moviegoers sought escape in tales of the supernatural, set in a simpler, more innocent time, the Victorian Age. When technology did manifest itself in the Hammer Films, it was in the personage of Dr. Frankenstein, a villain whose twisted meddling with nature inevitably brought about much suffering, and finally, his own doom. Blade II is diverges in some ways from these classic films but also shares some of their important characteristics.

Unlike the Hammer films of yore, the vampires of Blade II are creatures of science fiction, not the supernatural: the movie explains vampirism as the result of a hereditary viral infection. This however, does not reflect a more positive attitude toward science on the part of the filmmakers: quite the contrary. As it turns out, the evil super-vampires, the "reapers", who compulsively need to feed on blood, in the process creating more and more copies of themselves - a pretty obvious AIDS metaphor - have been genetically engineered by an evil vampire lord. Indeed, the villains in the movie come equipped with black helicopters and mysterious helmeted shock troops, in other words all the paraphrenalia of the paranoid's dream of shadow governments and multinational megacorp intrigue. The attitude of Blade II toward science is unrelentingly bleak. The film seems to say that those who would experiment with the building blocks of life encroach ruthlessly on the future of humanity, and only the power of automatic weapons, katanas, flying kicks and body-slams can preserve the free individual. Ted Kazcynski, we hardly knew ye.

This technophobic attitude seems in turn to arise out of real public ambivalence toward science. In poll after poll, ordinary citizens confess bewillderment as to what it is scientists actually study. Who among us actually understands the latest developments in cosmology, subatomic physics, molecular biology? As scientific research advances onward, it becomes more and more divorced from actual human experience. Today, with research departments in universities around the world competing for ever-shrinking supplies of funds, films like Blade II reflect the public's attitude that scientists are tampering with That Which Would Be Better Left Alone. The day may be near when pure, unapplied research will be a thing of the past.


Surprisingly good review!!! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 11:00:39 AM PST
Choclate Milkshake is not generally recognized for his logic or prose, however this stuff is very palatable. To me this diary is worthy of being on the front page.

It's true that C-Milky has some ridiculous views and he tends to be a geek-biggot. But this review was basically coherent and interesting.

Keep up the good work.



Not surprisingly condescending!!! (none / 0) (#2)
by hauntedattics on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 11:19:33 AM PST
I'm sure that Mr. Milkshake feels so much better about himself now that he's gotten his daily (sort of) affirmation from an AR. Would you please write semi-nice things about my diary entries too? Thanks bunches.



I am nothing if not basically coherent (none / 0) (#6)
by Chocolate Milkshake on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 12:27:07 AM PST
Ah yes, it just wouldn't be the AQ without the usual allotment of flames, cheap shots, and backhanded compliments.



Adequacy.org: We Don't Do *Hug*


 
I have a problem with you, Mr. Shake (none / 0) (#3)
by jvance on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 11:58:05 AM PST
I have an uneasy feeling that there's a homoerotic subtext here, but I can't seem to ferret it out.

Anyway, here it is. I want to suck on you. I want to suck you until you're dry and gurgling. I want to toss you aside, crushed, drained and empty. And then I want another.

Kind regards,

J. Vance
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

So basically I'm Miller-In-The-Can (none / 0) (#9)
by Chocolate Milkshake on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 01:14:26 AM PST
Thanks, I think...


No, you're a chocolate milkshake. (none / 0) (#10)
by jvance on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 01:29:23 AM PST
Truthfully, I didn't realize there was a Vampire meaning to my post until after I'd written it.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

You're not Austrian, by any chance? n/t (none / 0) (#14)
by hauntedattics on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 08:14:50 AM PST



Possibly. (none / 0) (#19)
by jvance on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 10:49:08 PM PST
Did I miss some reference in Mr. Milkshake's Miller In The Can post?

I'll happily admit that the fine people on this website are often far too clever for me, and I have trouble keeping up.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Frankenstein was a villain? (3.00 / 1) (#4)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 08:31:26 PM PST
I always thought he only underestimated the security level required for his project.

The attitude of most of The Plebs towards some branches of science reminds me about their attitude about the power plants. They don't want any around them - but they are more than happy to have electricity. Refusing to understand that it is a package deal.


you and your plebs (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by nathan on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 08:48:36 PM PST
Come to think of it, their attitude is exactly the same as yours is toward philosophy. You want empiricism without epistemology or metaphysics. No?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Me and my plebs (3.00 / 2) (#8)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 01:03:13 AM PST
You want empiricism without epistemology or metaphysics. No?

There was a Philosopher back in the ancient times. Meditating (I don't want to say wanking) over "important" epistemiological questions. Meanwhile, his colleagues were watching the stars, and then came up with the calendar. Others developed the wheel.

What was better usage of their time and thinking skills? What team brought more benefits to the mankind - the Babbling Philosopers, or the Empirics? Whose results are you using daily and whose ones are good only to talk about them and look smarter?

Results are what matters at the end. You can play nice game, but the score is what makes you a loser at the end. An empiric usually achieves more in a day than a metaphysicist in a lifetime.


Now this is more like it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Chocolate Milkshake on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 01:54:32 AM PST
Take note, dear reader, other sites maybe known for their My-OS-can-beat-up-your-OS pissing contests or their self-absorbed, eighth-grade-gossip-circle diary sections, but if it's honest-to-god philosophical fisticuffs you want, there's only one place to go.

I can't wait 'til everybody satrts threatening each other with pokers.


Ah, there's my homoerotic subtext (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by jvance on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 02:21:49 AM PST
"[E]ver since gay King Edward II was symbolically sodomised to death, the hostile wielding of a poker has had a very specific import. Perhaps it isn't like that for Austrians."
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
This is what I've been waiting for. (none / 0) (#13)
by derek3000 on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:59:21 AM PST
Results are what matters at the end. You can play nice game, but the score is what makes you a loser at the end.

Sorry if I'm a little cynical when someone tells me that the end justifies the means.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

You're right. (none / 0) (#15)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 11:04:14 AM PST
Sorry if I'm a little cynical when someone tells me that the end justifies the means.

The end doesn't justify the means. The end determines if you are a winner or a loser.

I thought this is the very principle of the Free Market that seems to be so heavily promoted in the West.


Yeah, sure. (none / 0) (#16)
by derek3000 on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 11:43:44 AM PST
The end doesn't justify the means.

Way to backpedal, considering that's exactly what you said in your previous post.

The end determines if you are a winner or a loser.

What about cheating? You basically just said the end justifies the means, yet again.

I thought this is the very principle of the Free Market that seems to be so heavily promoted in the West.

I'd like to think that the Free Market is all about the right to make, sell or buy whatever the fuck you want to. Can you honestly tell me that I shouldn't have the right to sell Britney Spears Bubble Gum if I'm willing to put the resources in it?

You don't know the first thing about the Free Market. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass and put it in a book that didn't have anything to do with computers you might get along better here.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Step in line! (none / 0) (#17)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 12:10:54 PM PST
Is your phone line and internet connection registered in your local internet commissar's office? Do you have recommendations from your local party official, the party representative at your place of employment and the municipal services office? Have you paid the internet tax in full? Are all your internet packets certified with and official goverment filtering software? Have you paid the customs tax for foreign packets? (Amortized in accordance with the distance to the place of destination, of course.) Do you have records of the IP addresses you accessed during the last six months, ready to show for in case of an unplanned security check? Have you paid your party membership dues? Are of you conscription age, and have you ever been convicted of a crime? Is your computer equipment certified by goverment standards as officially suitable for internet access? Do you have official permission, signed and stamped by your regional party office, for access to uncertified foreign sites?

If not, then I suggest you shut up about capitalism, OK? I appreciate it.


--
Peace and much love...




 
plebs encore (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by nathan on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 01:59:10 PM PST
Empiricism didn't just happen by itself. You have to do lots of difficult work to derive empirical philosophy (and then, of course, to criticise it.) Lots of cultures had empirically-conceived technology without scientific empiricism, in case you missed that in your extensive reading in cultural anthropology. Some cultures, for whatever reason, empirically developed non-technological solutions to technological problems (a great example is the Australian Aborigines' song-line navigation techniques; the use of complex songs to represent land navigation across the entire continent with sufficiently small granularity to notice individual rocks and trees. The Aborigines could memorise these and communicate navigation by singing them, which is a social technology that no Western culture can even dream of.)

What I'm trying to say is that you can't just be a cheerleader for empiricism while mocking the rest of philosophy. Empiricism is not some sort of base position. History shows us, if we're not to blinded by our preconceptions to notice, that there are lots of other ways for societies to exist; and that, moreover, it is philosophical inquiry that brought us to where we are now.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Well... (none / 0) (#7)
by Chocolate Milkshake on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 12:56:11 AM PST
Let me just go on the record in saying that I'm all for harnessing power of electricity to reanimate the dead, especially if said walking corpses have those cool bolts sticking out of their necks.

Still, I think what the plebs (some of whom vote, let's recall) are really opposed to is forking out tax dollars for things like superconducting supercolliders ("Look, five new flavors of quark!" Yeah, there's a billion bucks well spent), giant space telescopes ("In five billion years, will the universe expand into nothingness, or collapse back into itself?" Who gives a fuck?) or glow-in-the-dark, cloned flamingoes with patented DNA.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.