jollyninja said:it's a movie based on a comic book and you people are talking about continuity errors and saying that the first one was better. when referring to logical plots, you need to not refer to a completley ficticous character based on a mythical creature.
That one may not be all that inconsistent - vampires just aren't as vulnerable to sunlight in Blade as they are in the sequel (or in most vampire fiction, for that matter). In the "execution" scene, the indirect sunlight of early morning only causes the pureblood to smolder, while Frost and his companions expose their faces to it apparently without ill effect (maybe "turned" vampires aren't as affected as purebloods?). Even a focussed UV floodlight only causes 3rd-degree burns rather than flash-frying the vampire in question.Fenros said:Blade 1 even had a few logical slip-ups and we didn't mind. Frost standing out in the open with sunscreen on, yet his eyeballs, scalp, gums (when he opens to talk) don't burn up.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.