[FONT="Franklin
If certain things are not explained then shit has to make sense, generally.
Let's take Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" for instance. Romero never really explained why the dead came back to life, BUT through inference and exposition through dialogue, the movie going audience was able to intelligently [B]speculate [/B]on a REASONABLE explanation. We got the idea, as suggested, that the dead came back to life because of some sort of radiation, and I was good with that.
But with Daybreakers, [B](SPOILER ALERT)[/B] don't sit there and tell me that a limited,[B] external[/B], and topical exposure to sunlight would be the fix for an [B]internal[/B] and blood-borne pathogen that caused vampirism. It's so farfetched that it comes off as inane contrivance.
I don't need my hand held, but I like to be pointed in a direction that makes some sort of sense. If the filmmaker wants me to "fill in the blanks," with my imagination, the parts that surround the blanks have to make sense.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="DimGray"]This is completely understandable but I also agree with what Rawness typed.
I have to add that there are lots of stories (modern and classic) where things that where important to the plot were not always explained.
Not having an explanation to something doesn't always make it a bad story or movie. I think they wrote it so that they would have room to make more movies and possibly improve the story over time. Instead of crowding everything in one film.
Still for me the movie was excellent and I'd even go for a second viewing.