Luke wrote:
edit* Anyone else have a very strong feeling John McClane will die at the end of the new DIE HARD movie? Jack McClane certainly looks like he can carry the franchise.
I'm gonna internet-punch you in the face if that happens.
The title of the movie is "A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD".
The movie posters are chock full of foreshadowing.
Jack looks a lot like John, and John is getting too old for this shit.
The trailers are heavy with a "pass the torch" feeling.
The alternate title was "John DIES HARD at the end".
Okay, so I made up that last one, but it would make perfect sense for John to finally bite the bullet and let handsome vin diesel take over.
AppleQueso wrote:My prediction for the new Die Hard is that it still won't be better than the first Die Hard.
Safe bet.
But I will say I do like the direction they're taking. Like with Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D, the execs finally figured out they could never top the original and said "You know what? F*** it. Let's keep the name to draw in crowds but let's try something kinda' new".
Sure it will be an action thriller, but they don't seem to be going the 1-man army route. And I haven't read the script, so I'm just spit-balling anyway. For all I know Jack dies and John becomes the enemy.
Luke wrote:
edit* Anyone else have a very strong feeling John McClane will die at the end of the new DIE HARD movie? Jack McClane certainly looks like he can carry the franchise.
I'm gonna internet-punch you in the face if that happens.
The title of the movie is "A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD".
The movie posters are chock full of foreshadowing.
Jack looks a lot like John, and John is getting too old for this shit.
The trailers are heavy with a "pass the torch" feeling.
The alternate title was "John DIES HARD at the end".
Okay, so I made up that last one, but it would make perfect sense for John to finally bite the bullet and let handsome vin diesel take over.
Well I don't know the actor that plays Jack from anything, so I'm not sure whether or not that's annoying or not.
Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended...so the world might be mended.
Maybe they should just stop making "Die Hard" movies and make other good action movies with different titles...I mean we really only needed one "Die Hard" movie and the fact the words "Die" and "Hard" appear in the titles to each of the sequels does not add or detract from them. Likewise, the fact that the same cop is the protagonist in each of the sequels does not really add much. (In other words, I don't think that "Live Free of Die Hard" would have been any less awesome if it had a different title and the main character's name was "Officer Ron McCain"...) Honestly - at this point - the "Die Hard" name is merely branding, and the fact that the same character is the protagonist in each one is more than a little silly...
prfsnl_gmr wrote:Maybe they should just stop making "Die Hard" movies and make other good action movies with different titles...I mean we really only needed one "Die Hard" movie and the fact the words "Die" and "Hard" appear in the titles to each of the sequels does not add or detract from them. Likewise, the fact that the same cop is the protagonist in each of the sequels does not really add much. (In other words, I don't think that "Live Free of Die Hard" would have been any less awesome if it had a different title and the main character's name was "Officer Ron McCain"...) Honestly - at this point - the "Die Hard" name is merely branding, and the fact that the same character is the protagonist in each one is more than a little silly...
AFAIK (didn't watch all of the 4th one), none of the sequels acknowledge any of the other movies besides the first one. So yeah it's a little pointless.
Die Hard was an excellent movie, the sequels continuously feel unneeded.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:Maybe they should just stop making "Die Hard" movies and make other good action movies with different titles...I mean we really only needed one "Die Hard" movie and the fact the words "Die" and "Hard" appear in the titles to each of the sequels does not add or detract from them. Likewise, the fact that the same cop is the protagonist in each of the sequels does not really add much. (In other words, I don't think that "Live Free of Die Hard" would have been any less awesome if it had a different title and the main character's name was "Officer Ron McCain"...) Honestly - at this point - the "Die Hard" name is merely branding, and the fact that the same character is the protagonist in each one is more than a little silly...
Yes Die Hard 4 would have been significantly less awesome if the main character was someone else. True fact.
I love Die Hard and every Die Hard movie to some degree so I may be biased.
Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended...so the world might be mended.
prfsnl_gmr wrote: ... In other words, I don't think that "Live Free of Die Hard" would have been any less awesome if it had a different title and the main character's name was "Officer Ron McCain"...
Yes Die Hard 4 would have been significantly less awesome if the main character was someone else. True fact.
I love Die Hard and every Die Hard movie to some degree so I may be biased.
That is a bold statement! Die Hard 4 was a pretty sweet movie, and I think that it would have stayed that way even if the main character - still played by Bruce Willis, of course - was named "Ron McCain". (Another true fact. The movie might have been even better if the main character's name was "John McCain" and he was played by the distinguished senator from Arizona.)
I am also a big Die Hard fan, but I will admit that I love the second movie much less than the other three (but not by much).
I think we talked about it before, but yeah... the Die Hard's beyond the first one are passable popcorn flicks for me. If my friends are gonna check out the new one I'll tag along. The first is definitely one of my favorites though topped off with one of the best villains ever. Very memorable and influential movie.
I definitely don't like the third one at all though, so boring and I'm sorry Samuel L. Jackson, but I went in for Bruce Willis.
Stark wrote:
Yes Die Hard 4 would have been significantly less awesome if the main character was someone else. True fact.
I love Die Hard and every Die Hard movie to some degree so I may be biased.
That is a bold statement! Die Hard 4 was a pretty sweet movie, and I think that it would have stayed that way even if the main character - still played by Bruce Willis, of course - was named "Ron McCain". (Another true fact. The movie might have been even better if the main character's name was "John McCain" and he was played by the distinguished senator from Arizona.)
I am also a big Die Hard fan, but I will admit that I love the second movie much less than the other three (but not by much).
Yeah, I think that even played by Bruce Willis it wouldn't have been the same. There's history there and a certain way that he plays the character now ... who's to say how the character would be played if he wasn't playing John McClane?
Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended...so the world might be mended.
