MovieChat Forums > Daybreakers (2010) Discussion > The 'no reflection' bit was stupid and u...

The 'no reflection' bit was stupid and unnecessary

posted 15 years ago by JaySherman7
25 replies | jump to latest

We see, in his side view mirror, that Ethan Hawke has no reflection which I didn't care for at all. I mean, the film established that vampirism was contracted on more of a genetic level (Blade, Underworld), rather thant mystical or magical (Dracula, Vampire Chronicles).

it added nothing to the plot whatsoever to have them cast no reflection. it just made it seem like the screenwriters/directors were lazy, just not paying attention, or were not really sure what they were doing.

overall, I enjoyed the film. it wasn't great, but it was at least entertaing. it had an awesome premise, really one of the coolest in the vampire genre that we've seen lately, but the execution was a little sloppy.

Well, does he have a name or should I call him 'Lawyer'?

[–] monkeyspank-1 15 years ago

But them exploding when hit by a crossbow makes perfect sense?

I like how they kept the old school stuff about vampires and put it in a Sci-Fi setting. I was even about to call foul when they showed him looking at his ear in the mirror (right before he got in the wreck), but after watching it again I saw that the visor mirror was actually a monitor for video playback. I didn't really see it as lazy. Instead, I viewed it as more of a hat-tip. Vampires movies these days try too hard to do away with the more mystical aspects. I liked that lil bit of fan service for old school vampire fans.

[–] maxloh-1 14 years ago

Aren't all the human-made crossbows armed with explode-on-contact devices?

http://www.maxloh.com/

[–] GreyCadillacs 15 years ago

It established a mood in the beginning. It showed the movie as going with the mythology of vampires. It was a cool shot.

Enough reasons for you?

[–] JaySherman7 15 years ago

how did it show that the movie was going with the mythology of vampires? the vampire mythology implies more supernatural origins, of which the film had none, so what do you mean?

Somebody in there called me a fag!
Mike Dexter

[–] Jigsaw737 15 years ago

Are you kidding? The vampires were completely mythical in this movie:

- no reflections
- transformation from human to vampire and back almost instantly
- the sun sets them on fire
- piercing the heart makes them explode
- simple sunlight is the cure

None of this has anything to do with genetics or science in general.

The genetics elements in the movie were all about the humans and a substitute for blood.

--------------------------------------------------------
~No matter where you go, there you are~

[–] move_over_fatso 15 years ago

...and the vampires should NOT have been mythical.

They could have easily made a more "credible" story by portraying vampirism as a disease, than to give them "mythical" powers.

Let them reflect light, let their hearts beat.

Instead of bursting in flames when exposed to the sun, they could just erupt into a slow chemical burn. Let them have monster regenerative abilities, which required staking their heart in order to kill them (with certainty).

Throughout the movie, it was implied that vampirism was caused by a virus. Sucking a "cured" vampire somehow killed the vampire virus. That's why they reverted.

A further nit: they couldn't possibly still have a functioning civilization with so little "food" left. There should not have been those numbers of vampires, to allow a functioning city. Countermeasures would have been taken beforehand.

[–] Jigsaw737 15 years ago

...and the vampires should NOT have been mythical.

Personally I'm sick of all these vampire who aren't really vampires anymore. I found it refreshing to see the good old mythical vampires in a somewhat new take on the subject matter.

Please, no more mutant "vampires", not daytime "vampires", no "glitter in the sun vampires", no no-fang "vampires" and also please no dont-say-the-V-word "vampires". I want Vampires that actually ARE vampires. Daybreakers delivered on that demand and is all the better for it.

--------------------------------------------------------
~No matter where you go, there you are~

[–] SoTyred 15 years ago

When did it say anything about it being genetic?

**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone

[–] Riotboy-1 15 years ago

The OP is just nit-picking at vampire lore while using 3 different movies as an example. Anyhow it was pretty good film, which it focus more on the "vampire city" and the mutant vampires. 7/10

Look at the night sky, where does it end?
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=15368636

[–] Nightwatchv 15 years ago

What do you mean it made them seem like they were lazy? What, adding something cool to the movie that makes you have a little smile if you pick up on it? Yeah, sounds lazy to me...

Or did you mean that having to go in and take out the reflections and add things like a little camera to the rear view "mirrior" made them more lazy than just leaving them with refelctions?

Not everything in a film has to add to the plot. This is why these guys make awesome films and you do not.

[–] Rek_07 15 years ago

Exactly, how can removing reflections be considered lazy when it requires so much extra work.

It's pretty hard to consider the way Vampire's spread their undeath in anyway other then a virus. It's mythical, always has been, but it's something that spreads throughout your body and can be passed onto other people...it may not be like a real virus in science terms but what else would real world people/media call it?

[–] DeAd_MiKe_187 14 years ago

During the opening credits, if you read the "news reports" on the right side of the screen right as they show the subway entrance, you see one that says, "How a single bat started it all." So, the outbreak was caused by a bat. Seems more 'mythical' than just a straight-up 'virus' like '28 Days Later' used a 'virus' for 'zombies.'

[–] JaySherman7 14 years ago

"How a single bat started it all." So, the outbreak was caused by a bat. Seems more 'mythical' than just a straight-up 'virus' like '28 Days Later'

You mean like in 28 Days Later..."How a single monkey started it all."?

[–] DeAd_MiKe_187 14 years ago

Yes, but in '28 Days Later,' the zombie/mutant/whatevers died in any way a human would - they weren't supernatural - so it was a regular 'virus.'

[–] eugenia_loli 14 years ago

I completely AGREE with the first poster. The movie was trying to be realistic, by making the vampire issue a medical condition. So both the the no-reflection, AND the blowing up after getting getting stabbed, was completely unnecessary. It made the movie really cheesy, while the rest of the movie was good. If they had fixed these 2-3 cheesy issues in the movie, I think they'd have more success.

[–] subase 14 years ago

Firstly Blade and Underworld weren't scientific. Just because people say 'genetics' or 'blood disease' in a movie doesn't mean jack.

Daybreakers actually had them scientifically finding out a cure on screen. It had vampires degenerate into pure instinct animal bat like creatures if they didn't feed on blood. This process was also accelerated if they fed on their own blood. It had testing of cures etcetera. This is by FAR the most scientific vampire film ever by a wide ass margin.

And also essential to the cure was the heart beating again. Keep in mind the heart is the only muscle in the body that doesn't need nervous impulses to move. Cardiac muscle is special muscle that beat's on it's own.

Obviously the heart had something to do with vampirism and it's cure. It also makes the lack of inhumanity of the vampirism easier to understand since the heart is essential for alot of emotional physical feelings, and the transmission of chemicals and such to create a 'feeling' of a mental emotional response in ones body. It's also damn poetic seeing as the 'heart' is often seen as the centre of our soul or humanity.

Spontaneous combustion is a possibility. Cell's life cycle involves something that could be manipulated to cause a combustion. If this happens enmasse in billions of cell's you would have an explosion like in the film. Also the heart causing them to explode just looks cool but also could have some basis in the biology of these vampires seeing as cardiac muscle is 'special' it's tearing could cause a chain reaction of combustion, unlike other muscles types in the body.

The invisibility thing was obviously just a witty humorous reference to the past film vampire history. It was a cool looking shot, and vampires being 'invisible' was never used in the entire movie except for that shot.

[–] JaySherman7 14 years ago

Firstly Blade (wasn't) scientific. Just because people say 'blood disease' in a movie doesn't mean jack.

Daybreakers actually had them scientifically finding out a cure on screen

um, so then what was that hematologist, Dr. Jenson, doing the entire first Blade movie? wasn't she was finding a cure to what she referred to a 'transmitted disease'? and wasn't Hannibal King cured of his vampirism through medication? you're right, though. that has nothing to do with science.

[–] subase 14 years ago

They had science circling around the movie but not actually put to real use. The girl wanted to find a cure, but they didn't show any of that. What she did create was instead a weapon that blew up vampire heads. (Daybreakers payed homage to Blade?)

Blade 2 had even less science, just Del Toro getting monster happy.

[–] JaySherman7 14 years ago

not put to real use? she cured herself! presumably, it was her cure or at least her research that led to being able cure others, like Hannibal King

and she didn't create a weapon. as a hematologist, she was aware of a certain anticoagulant which she introduced to Blade. it was Scud who made a weapon out of it

[–] subase 14 years ago

You aren't seriously talking about all THREE Balde films are you. That's not fair.

Just talk about one. The first film had jack all science in. I'll sum up the science.

"anticoagulant"
"I'll just cure myself!"

That's it. I would argue Blade II has more science. But Daybreakers blows even the entire series taken collectively away with it's inclusion of science. That's why Daybreakers feels somewhat 'real' while the Blade films feel like comic book movies.

[–] JaySherman7 14 years ago

LOL! I couldn't 'seriously' be talking about more than one movie at a time in a franchise? 'It's not fair'? what are you gonna do? go tell on me?

and btw, this is not a debate about which film dealt more with the scientific aspects of vampirism. I simply stated that the Blade series treated it as more of a virus, as opposed to something mystical (on some levels anyway). who cares if Daybreakers 'blows the series' away with it's inclusion of science?

[–] thefooligan5 14 years ago

Well I didn't even notice that bit so it couldn't have been critical to the story. Just having a bit of fun with the vampire trope. Chill out.

[–] wakanasakai 12 years ago

This was a good movie, but a lot of anti-science crud weighed down heavily on it's credibility.
Vampires don't have reflections? Only if they're invisible.
Vampires' hearts don't beat? Only after they DIE.
Sunlight bursts vampires into flames? Only if they live ON the sun.
Vampires explode if they get stabbed? Only if they're made out of dynamite.
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.