These forums may contain mild adult content and are not associated with EON, Sony or any other companies and do not reflect their views.
 
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 The Die Hard Series

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
AuthorMessage
Largo's Shark
Moderator
Moderator


Posts : 10600
Member Since : 2011-03-14

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:13 am

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Problem with your analogy is that nobody wanted to see anything with Shia LeBeouf in it. Look, I've been a proponent of recasting Indiana Jones; I think the series could go on without Ford, but keeping both Ford and Willis in franchises that they are no longer suitable for because they are too old does everyone a disservice. People probably thought 007 couldn't survive without Connery, but it has.

Apples and oranges. The other Bond actors were playing variations on the same character. A better analogy would be with the JAMES BOND JR. cartoon in the early 90s.
Back to top Go down
Loomis
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 1414
Member Since : 2011-04-12

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:06 am

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:
Problem with your analogy is that nobody wanted to see anything with Shia LeBeouf in it. Look, I've been a proponent of recasting Indiana Jones; I think the series could go on without Ford, but keeping both Ford and Willis in franchises that they are no longer suitable for because they are too old does everyone a disservice. People probably thought 007 couldn't survive without Connery, but it has.

I think that some roles are recastable while others aren't, and my instinct tells me that Indiana Jones is in the latter category. There's no hard and fast rule about whether a role is or isn't recastable - a lot of it hinges on how iconic an actor's portrayal is.* I just can't imagine anyone but Ford in the role, and the only way I can see it working with another actor is in a couple of decades from now when the whole Indiana Jones saga is rebooted. Similarly, I can't see anyone other than Stallone as Rambo, or anyone but Schwarzenegger as the Terminator.

That said, we'll soon be treated to Tom Hardy's Mad Max, but given that almost thirty years have passed since BEYOND THUNDERDOME I don't miss Gibson quite as much as I might have done had FURY ROAD been made in the early 1990s. That said, make no mistake: I do miss Gibson and I do wish he were starring in FURY ROAD (especially as FURY ROAD is apparently being presented as a straight sequel to THUNDERDOME as opposed to a series reboot).

*Mind you, no one was more iconic than Connery as Bond, but perhaps the recasting of Bond is merely the exception that proves the rule.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:
And I think, at one point, there was an idea of moving the Lethal Weapon series along without Glover and Gibson (neither one I have any use for anymore) by bringing on their sons....or am I thinking of Beverly Hills Cop?

I seem to recall that there was reportedly a plan in the late 1990s to do LETHAL WEAPON 5 as a vehicle for Chris Rock (Murtaugh's son-in-law, introduced to the series in LETHAL WEAPON 4). Presumably Joe Pesci would have returned, and perhaps Gibson and Glover would have had cameos.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:
The lame f/x are what may ruin the film, though. Why does a film from 1988 look more realistic than a film in 2013 with 100x the budget and greater access to f/x talent? H'wood is too dependent on CGI. They can't see the ruin they are causing even when it is staring them right in the face.

Indeed.

In other DIE HARD news, A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD reportedly has a running time of 97 minutes, making it by far the shortest entry in the series.


Last edited by Loomis on Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Gravity's Silhouette
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 3854
Member Since : 2011-04-16
Location : Inside my safe space

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:04 am

Loomis wrote:

In other DIE HARD news, A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD reportedly has a running time of 97 minutes, making it by far the shortest entry in the series.

If that is true, then it is the death-knell for the series. I've always equated short-running times with low budget pictures, or films that simply didn't have enough plot to sustain 2 hours or more. Quite frankly, I'd rather not go see an action film that is less than 2 hours and 15 minutes long. Only comedies should be in the 1:40 to 1:55 range. Action,drama, sci-fi, detective, period pieces....all should be at a minimum 2 hours and 15 minutes, if not much longer.

I was already somewhat skeptical of releasing the film in February; now this new running time makes the prospect of success a lot more worrisome.
Back to top Go down
Blunt Instrument
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 3131
Member Since : 2011-03-20
Location : Belfast, Northern Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:57 am

Rather a relatively brief running time than bloatedly overlong like a Pirates Of The Caribbean sequel.
Back to top Go down
Largo's Shark
Moderator
Moderator


Posts : 10600
Member Since : 2011-03-14

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:58 am

Back to top Go down
Gravity's Silhouette
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 3854
Member Since : 2011-04-16
Location : Inside my safe space

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:26 am

Blunt Instrument wrote:
Rather a relatively brief running time than bloatedly overlong like a Pirates Of The Caribbean sequel.

Perhaps, but that won't be the case with Die Hard 5. Look, I'm just not going to roll out of bed, and spend $10 on 90 minutes of actual movie, 7 minutes of credits, and 20 minutes of previews for other films. A 90 minute action film is not worth the investment. It brings to mind cheap, B-grade, straight-to-vhs/dvd rentals like HARD TICKET TO HAWAII and ROBBERS OF THE SACRED MOUNTAIN.

The boards at IMDB have gone ballistic. No matter the brave face that a few fans over there are trying to put on, they intrinsically understand that a 97 minute film is the mark of no-quality. It's the white flag of surrender. It's like saying we could barely scrape enough quality material to fill up 90 minutes plus the credits.

Length is no guarantee of success, but I'd rather try and do more with more than try and do more with less. At two hours you can at least say you gave the audience as much bang for their buck as you could. At an hour and a half, you're all but admitting total failure.

I can't think of an entry in any major franchise where the film was 97 minutes and a good film. Alien Versus Predator crapped out at 87 minutes.....SUPERMAN IV was a waste of 90 minutes.....

I'd rather a franchise tried big and failed with 2 hours than essentially aim low and hit the target.
Back to top Go down
j7wild
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 2039
Member Since : 2011-09-10

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:43 am

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:
A 90 minute action film is not worth the investment. It brings to mind cheap, B-grade, straight-to-vhs/dvd rentals like HARD TICKET TO HAWAII and ROBBERS OF THE SACRED MOUNTAIN.

Don't forget ANY POS WITH STEVEN SEAGAL IN THEM.

The loser is stuck in the former Eastern European countries making direct to video action crap!

This is just like FOX.

FOX does it again!

Screwing up another movie franchise with crappy entries.

They did it to the Alien franchise and the Predator franchise, now Die Hard franchise.

What's next?

The Star Wars franchise?

Oh wait.. they already did that when they sold it to Disney and Disney hired Abrams...
Back to top Go down
Largo's Shark
Moderator
Moderator


Posts : 10600
Member Since : 2011-03-14

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:56 am

j7wild wrote:
former Eastern European countries

What are they now? Africa?
Back to top Go down
Loomis
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 1414
Member Since : 2011-04-12

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:06 am

I don't have any trouble with the concept of a 97-minute action thriller. The last two DIE HARDs felt too drawn-out to me. The first one clocks in at about 130 minutes, which is a pretty generous running time in my book, but it's so brilliantly made that it just flies by.

Most films are far too long, if you ask me. I saw ZERO DARK THIRTY the other day and thought it ought to have been trimmed by at least an hour, maybe an hour and a half. Then again, DJANGO UNCHAINED has pretty much the same running time and certainly doesn't feel like it. It's not about how long a film is but how long it seems. It may be that A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD will feel bloated and plodding even at 97 minutes.
Back to top Go down
Loomis
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 1414
Member Since : 2011-04-12

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:12 am

On a more positive note, I think A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD is the first film since the original (or if not then the first film since DIE HARD 2) to bring the "fish out of water" angle back to the series. With his trip to Russia, McClane is back on unfamiliar turf.
Back to top Go down
Makeshift Python
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 6800
Member Since : 2011-03-14
Location : Up

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:45 am

j7wild wrote:

Oh wait.. they already did that when they sold it to Disney and Disney hired Abrams...

FOX had nothing to do with the selling of Lucasfilm.
Back to top Go down
Largo's Shark
Moderator
Moderator


Posts : 10600
Member Since : 2011-03-14

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:15 am

j7wild wrote:
In other DIE HARD news, A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD reportedly has a running time of 97 minutes, making it by far the shortest entry in the series.

This film will be the death-knell for the series.

I've always equated short-running times with low budget pictures, or films that simply didn't have enough plot to sustain 2 hours or more. Quite frankly, I'd rather not go see an action film that is less than 2 hours and 15 minutes long. Only comedies should be in the 1:40 to 1:55 range. Action,drama, sci-fi, detective, period pieces....all should be at a minimum 2 hours and 15 minutes, if not much longer.

I was already somewhat skeptical of releasing the film in February; now this new running time makes the prospect of success a lot more worrisome.

I'm just not going to roll out of bed, and spend $10 on 90 minutes of actual movie, 7 minutes of credits, and 20 minutes of previews for other films. A 90 minute action film is not worth the investment. It brings to mind cheap, B-grade, straight-to-vhs/dvd rentals like HARD TICKET TO HAWAII and ANY POS WITH STEVEN SEAGAL IN THEM.

You have to intrinsically understand that a 97 minute film is the mark of no-quality. It's the white flag of surrender. It's like saying we could barely scrape enough quality material to fill up 90 minutes plus the credits.

Length is no guarantee of success, but I'd rather try and do more with more than try and do more with less. At two hours you can at least say you gave the audience as much bang for their buck as you could. At an hour and a half, you're all but admitting total failure.

I can't think of an entry in any major franchise where the film was 97 minutes and a good film. Alien Versus Predator crapped out at 87 minutes.....SUPERMAN IV was a waste of 90 minutes.....

I'd rather a franchise tried big and failed with 2 hours than essentially aim low and hit the target.

This is just like FOX.

FOX does it again!

Screwing up another movie franchise with crappy entries.

They did it to the Alien franchise and the Predator franchise, now Die Hard franchise.

What's next?

The Star Wars franchise?

Oh wait.. they already did that when they sold it to Disney and Disney hired Abrams...

http://www.movie-list.com/forum/showthread.php?25464-Die-Hard-5-Kill-me-now!!&p=225765#post225765

Hmmm....
Back to top Go down
Makeshift Python
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 6800
Member Since : 2011-03-14
Location : Up

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:45 am

I'm pretty sure j7 will just pretend you didn't post that, unless he proves me wrong.
Back to top Go down
Blunt Instrument
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 3131
Member Since : 2011-03-20
Location : Belfast, Northern Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:52 am

Have just seen that this has been certified 12A in the UK, which means watered-down violence and the franchise 'catchphrase' 'Yippie-ki-ay, motherfucker!' won't have made it into the film, either.

With Bond, A/PG/12A certification has never bothered me, because t'was always thus (other than LTK). But the Die Hards started off 18-rated, and have ended up at 12A ... actually puts me off, because the last entry was also 12A and I thought 'suffered' because of it.
Back to top Go down
Gravity's Silhouette
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 3854
Member Since : 2011-04-16
Location : Inside my safe space

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:19 am

Blunt Instrument wrote:
Have just seen that this has been certified 12A in the UK, which means watered-down violence and the franchise 'catchphrase' 'Yippie-ki-ay, motherfucker!' won't have made it into the film, either.

With Bond, A/PG/12A certification has never bothered me, because t'was always thus (other than LTK). But the Die Hards started off 18-rated, and have ended up at 12A ... actually puts me off, because the last entry was also 12A and I thought 'suffered' because of it.

I've always thought the argument FOR more violence and FOR more strong language missed the point of what made the first DIE HARD film such a classic. On the other hand, the series has done itself no favors by both "watering down" the content and also churning out two lackluster films (4 & 5). Right now, AGDTDH has a 14% freshness rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and that's with 103 reviews coming in, 89 of which are BRUTAL!

Should've introduced Jack in DIE HARD 4; maybe they would have had something to build upon for DIE HARD 5. Instead, they wasted time with Lucy McClane, who was never going to be a franchise lead.
Back to top Go down
Blunt Instrument
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 3131
Member Since : 2011-03-20
Location : Belfast, Northern Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:58 am

They've done it to get the teens in, of course ... but considering all they're gonna do is talk, text and Tweet throughout anyway, who needs 'em?
Back to top Go down
Makeshift Python
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 6800
Member Since : 2011-03-14
Location : Up

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:13 am

Lucy was hot, so I can excuse them for that and besides I didn't really expect 5 to happen given how long it's been taking to make the last two.
Back to top Go down
Prisoner Monkeys
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 2849
Member Since : 2011-10-29
Location : Located

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:54 am

The first reviews are in, and the general consensus is that it's pretty poor. Why the producers thought it was a good idea to hire the director of MAX PAYNE and the writer of X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE, HITMAN and THE A-TEAM is a mystery that may never be solved.
Back to top Go down
Loomis
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 1414
Member Since : 2011-04-12

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:09 pm

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:
I've always thought the argument FOR more violence and FOR more strong language missed the point of what made the first DIE HARD film such a classic.

Yeah, it's hardly as though heavy violence and bad language were what made DIE HARD great. One of the main reasons why that film works so well is that the characters are interesting - almost of all them, in fact. Willis is an engaging, everyman hero, while Alan Rickman rightly gets an awful lot of praise as villain both chilling and charming (if only Hans Gruber could have made his first appearance in a Dalton Bond outing), but even small roles like Ellis (Hart Bochner), Karl (Alexander Godunov) and Takagi (James Shigeta) are well-written, well-acted and memorable.

Granted, there are some caricatures in the film, such as William Atherton's tabloid TV reporter and Paul Gleason's pigheaded LAPD bigwig, but broadly speaking DIE HARD is populated by recognisable human beings who amount to more than your standard bunch of action movie cannon fodder. It's ultimately because these characters come alive as people that the film succeeds (the first HALLOWEEN is infinitely better than its sequels for the same reason).

I do intend to see A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD, although my expectations are very, very low indeed. One clip I've seen that has me rolling my eyes is of McClane dealing with an angry passerby who's in his way (it's during a chase scene, I think, and this guy is holding McClane up). So McClane allows this fella to hurl a torrent of invective at him in Russian, whereupon McClane punches him out while replying: "You think I understand a word you say?"

The viewer is presumably supposed to chuckle at this, but the McClane of the first film would never behave in this way. He'd never wallop an innocent bystander (not even an annoying one) for the sake of a cheap and unfunny joke. It would seem that the problem with the DIE HARD sequels isn't the watering down of the violence and language but the watering down of John McClane, who was originally a much more believable, rounded and interesting character.
Back to top Go down
Blunt Instrument
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 3131
Member Since : 2011-03-20
Location : Belfast, Northern Ireland

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:23 am

Just to clarify, I do appreciate that there's more to the first film than a barrage of swearing 'n' splattery bullet wounds ... agreed about McClane being a more vulnerable, engaging Everyman (hard to imagine anything like the scene in which he picks the glass from his feet while having the 'Listen, if I don't make it ... ' conversation with Powell over the walkie-talkie in a modern Die Hard film).

It's just ... eh, when a franchise starts 'adult' (for want of a better word) I kinda wish it would have the balls to stay there. Robocop started out as an 18-rated, splattery, blackly funny action satire ... and ended up as a network TV show :roll: . What the reboot will bring remains to be seen.

Oh, and the other way round wouldn't sit well with me either ... if the Bonds were suddenly full of buckets of blood and F-bombs on a regular basis, that'd be extremely weird.


Last edited by Blunt Instrument on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
j7wild
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 2039
Member Since : 2011-09-10

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:30 am

15% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 131 Ratings so far...



I'll wait for the DVD!
Back to top Go down
Ravenstone
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 1471
Member Since : 2011-03-17
Location : The Gates of Horn and Ivory

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:27 am

Saw this last night - first viewing.

Well, it's not as good as the others. It's all peaks and troughs, moving from action sequence to action sequence, with nothing in between. Still, the action sequences are good. The script seems lacking. The editing isn't slick enough. A lot of the car chase at the beginning is worse than Quantum of Solace, which at least only had three cars to watch. This one has dozens of cars all over the place, and it's impossible to know what's going on most of the time.

There are some bizarre cuts - for instance : a shot with PoV appearing and disappearing behind a parked car after the car chase ended. No idea why, who or what we're supposed to be looking at. Just seems there for no reason. Establishing shot at the ballroom is too long, then cuts to a closer shot when they enter. Bad editing. Several short out of focus shots. Not 'arty' out of focus - just bad out of focus. And a severe lack of soundtrack makes the beginning of the film almost painfully quiet.

Not a bad film - but not a Die Hard film.

And there's a yippie-ki-ay, but that's about it. To be honest, I was just pleased to see the Beretta 92F at the beginning. Oh and a 'cowboy' reference.
Back to top Go down
Prisoner Monkeys
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 2849
Member Since : 2011-10-29
Location : Located

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:27 am

Perhaps one good thing will come out of this: the producers will realise that this "DIE HARD for the 21st Century" nonsense that they've been peddling is the wrong way to go about it, and try to recapture the spirit of the original film.

It's not that hard to do:

1) You take a villain with a master plan.

2) You put him in control of a location, and isolate that location from the rest of the world.

3) You have the villain plan for every outcome, except for a lone gunman who is a fish out of water.

4) You place John McClane in that location, with his presence only tangentially related to the villain's scheme.

5) You give the villain a secondary motive, a twist that makes McClane the best person to stop the threat because he is the only outsider who knows it.
Back to top Go down
AMC Hornet
Senior Correspondent
avatar

Posts : 700
Member Since : 2011-08-19
Location : Station 'C' - Canada

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:20 pm

Desaturized colour
Shakycam
Moscow-Kiev - what was the clue?
Last-minute double-cross
95 minute runtime. "Yipee-ki-yay" is the cue that it's almost over - already?
Jai Courtney is no heir to the franchise.
At least it makes Live Free seem more like a Die Hard movie than it did yesterday.

Apart from all that, good flick.
Back to top Go down
The White Tuxedo
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
avatar

Posts : 6062
Member Since : 2011-03-14
Location : ELdorado 5-9970

PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:09 pm

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:
Perhaps one good thing will come out of this: the producers will realise that this "DIE HARD for the 21st Century" nonsense that they've been peddling is the wrong way to go about it, and try to recapture the spirit of the original film.

It's not that hard to do:

1) You take a villain with a master plan.

2) You put him in control of a location, and isolate that location from the rest of the world.

3) You have the villain plan for every outcome, except for a lone gunman who is a fish out of water.

4) You place John McClane in that location, with his presence only tangentially related to the villain's scheme.

5) You give the villain a secondary motive, a twist that makes McClane the best person to stop the threat because he is the only outsider who knows it.

And 6) Ellis.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Die Hard Series   

Back to top Go down
 
The Die Hard Series
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 7 of 10Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Bond And Beyond :: Beyond :: Film News & Film Discussion-
Jump to: