Author Topic: Ink (2009)  (Read 3399 times)

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Ink (2009)
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2010, 08:45:09 AM »
Yea, Daywatch is still better than Ink. Then again, Daywatch is a modern masterpiece.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Ink (2009)
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2010, 10:53:13 AM »
Yea, Daywatch is still better than Ink. Then again, Daywatch is a modern masterpiece.

I didn't realize there was so much Daywatch > Nightwatch sentiment. Nightwatch was the first one, correct? I thought it was much better. Still liked Daywatch, but it just was lacking the same sense of awe. Did the third ever come out/get made? I thought it was supposed to be a trilogy. Anyway, for me:

Ink > Nightwatch > Primer > Daywatch.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Ink (2009)
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2010, 12:42:32 PM »
Nightwatch came first.  I just agree with sam that Daywatch had a more cohesive narrative.  And as far as awe, my favorite moment from both films is the scene in Daywatch where the woman drives her sports car across the side of the hotel.  Plus, there's that totally original apocalypse at the climax of Daywatch.

It was supposed to be a trilogy, and I've heard conflicting reasons as to why it didn't happen.  From what I can gather, the 3rd book in the series dealt with the lavish party and the apocalypse.  During the making of Daywatch, the director was being heavily courted by Hollywood and he was anxious to bring his style to America, so he folded his trilogy into a lengthy 2nd movie in order to finish the main narrative out.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Ink (2009)
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2010, 01:20:08 PM »
I haven't read the third book yet, but Daywatch the movie is a big departure from Daywatch the book so I think they would just have to make their own story for the third film.

 

love