A Good Day to Die Hard

[Liam_H]

Just accepting whatever they give sounds pretty awful.

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackbolt

Why can't you guys just enjoy the spectacle of it.

Because for some people it looks terrible, cheap, fake, ridiculous (unintentionally, and not in a good way either). Also, pure spectacle is not enough for some, especially when the 1st movie (and the 3rd) of the franchise was more than just spectacle.

That's the problem with people today. This is why traditional action movies are dying.

No, it's because studios are trying to apply their definition of "cool" to action movies nowadays and miss the point of what made traditional movies work.

All the Die Hard movies have unbelievable stunts and effects.

No, they don't. They 're pretty great, but nothing that hasn't been done before technically. It was the character and the stakes and the writing that complimented the great action that made those movies work.

People go to see this for McClane and the action.

Only Bruce Willis doesn't act like McLane in DH2, 4 and (by the looks of it) 5. But that's part of the writing. Which clearly isn't there anymore.

[Lord Blackbolt]

So you're telling me when he's surfing a TRUCK on a tidal wave in a tunnel in Die Hard 3 that looked believable.

[James]

Originally Posted by culver3vlr22

Why so much hate for DH4?

I can understand people not liking Live Free or Die Hard. I loved it, but I see why some folks didn't. I think a better question would be "Why so much hate for DH5?". To which I would answer...

Do you remember before The Dark Knight came out, when they announced Heath Ledger would be playing The Joker? I do. I remember the internet practically exploding because he was obviously going to be a terrible joker, no one wanted that "surfer boy" (actual quote) to play such an iconic villain. Of course the film came out and all that hatred got buried deep in place of love.

The point is, people by and large (especially us fanboys and girls) very rarely ever take the 'wait and see' approach. We get a little bit of information and that's enough, it's either going to rock or socks or be the worst thing the world has ever produced and nothing will ever change that...unless we see it and happen to like it.

Don't get me wrong -this isn't to suggest that you can't make a fair assessment of something based off the preview material. I only bring it up because there's a stark difference between "This is probably not going to be very good but I'll wait and see with the hope I'm proven wrong" and "This will absolutely suck...well yes, of course I'll see it anyway."

[-JKR-]

Certainly more believable than surfing on a flying jet and then jumping off like Spider-man. But Len Wiseman has yet to make a movie in which the characters don't act like they're superheroes.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackbolt

Why can't you guys just enjoy the spectacle of it. That's the problem with people today. This is why traditional action movies are dying. All the Die Hard movies have unbelievable stunts and effects. People go to see this for McClane and the action.

The problem with people today is that they have different opinions / preferences than you do?

You argue that traditional action movies are dying because of "people today." Then you state approvingly in the final sentence that "people go to see this for McClane and the action." Well, which is it? Are action movies dying because people today disagree with you, or do people today agree with you? The 2nd and 5th sentences in your post are in contradiction.

Hasty generalizations and contradictions of thought make your comment quite a spectacle but not particularly well-written.

[Ultimatehero]

Nm. Thought for a second it said jumped off of the helicopter not than the jet.

[TheVileOne]

It could look better in the movie, but that clip of the stunt looks BAD.

[ShadowBoxer]

If this movie bombs like Arnold and Sly's new movies then I think it would be safe to say that this would be the last Die Hard movie or the last staring Bruce. But I doubt this movie will bomb as bad as Arnold and Sly's because this is a known franchise and its been advertised like crazy.

[ThePhantasm]

Even if it did bomb, I'm not sure one flop out of five movies would be enough to end the franchise. Unless Bruce just decided he was finished.

[TheVileOne]

The director John Moore has yet to really direct a big hit except the Omen remake I guess but that sucked. Flight of the Phoenix tanked. Max Payne was a disappointment. I guess he's got The Omen and Behind Enemy Lines.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by Ultimatehero

These clips are obviously edited. No one else remembers the clips from 'Live Free and Die Hard'? Because the clips from that never looked good, then while seeing it - a lot of them were just poorly edited and the film itself was good.

One clip shows an obvious ad-lib for the clip, unless you really think "let's leap frog" is an actual line.

And the shot of him hanging on obviously isn't showing the whole thing due to its continuity problems.

They are edited and what is sad, if the movie is actually 97 minutes long...well, these aren't just edited for promo, they be in the movie in their edited glory. I imagine there's a longer cut that isn't being put in theaters.

97 minutes means very rushed/fast paced. And these clips come off as rushed. I don't see this movie doing very good now, I think opening weekend will be at low end of 15 million to a high of 25 million. Won't be a flop like Parker, Bullet to the Head, or Last Stand, but Domestic I think it disappoints, but we will get a 6th movie. Why? Cause this should make over $200 million overseas, it's Die Hard, people.

I think the final domestic tally is gonna be in the $60 to $90 million range. Seems like a weak R rating and 97 minutes? Give me PG-13 and around 115 minutes to 130 minutes.

Never thought I would say that about Die Hard...

Oh, and c'mon, Valentine's Day release? At least Fox is promoting the movie, I give them that. So I suppose it could still open to around $30 million opening weekend...it's just that I think the run time and reviews may hurt it.

I love how Cole Hauser is in the movie, but hasn't been in the trailers lol.

[Cagefighterkip]

Have any reviews hit the net yet?

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by Cagefighterkip

Have any reviews hit the net yet?

Nah bro. Imma be on it like a hawk.

[Ultimatehero]

Yeah, the valentine's day thing makes absolutely no sense - I would have definitely released it on Father's Day. It seems more like a father and son action movie. I know I'd rather see it with my dad than my friends for that reason at least. It just seems like that kind of movie.

Also don't go knocking the run-time. There are plenty of things that happen in the editing room and plenty of things that don't. The script, for all we know, could just be 100 pages and it came out to a 105 minute run-time total and they just took some things out. Or the script could have been tighter and hardly anything was taken out. It could in fact tell us that the script paid more attention to making the story tight and good rather than carrying around any unnecessary weight that could have been easily lost. I'm sure we all know those moments in films where we think, "well that wasn't needed and dragged things down a bit." I'm working on an action script right now at a major company and it's looking to be only 98 pages long! It has character moments, it has big action spectacle moments, just with this story being tight there was no need for any extra weight and adding any extra weight would ruin the script that it's turning out to be. Run time, I'm seeing this 98 pages as possibly becoming 105 minutes tops since it's an action film. I'm not saying that's what happened here. Just that you can never tell where those minutes are actually being spent until the final product itself. It could just be a 'tight' script. The run time should serve the story, not the other way around. And both overly long movies and overly short movies make that mistake.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by Ultimatehero

Yeah, the valentine's day thing makes absolutely no sense - I would have definitely released it on Father's Day. It seems more like a father and son action movie. I know I'd rather see it with my dad than my friends for that reason at least. It just seems like that kind of movie.

Also don't go knocking the run-time. There are plenty of things that happen in the editing room and plenty of things that don't. The script, for all we know, could just be 100 pages and it came out to a 105 minute run-time total and they just took some things out. Or the script could have been tighter and hardly anything was taken out. It could in fact tell us that the script paid more attention to making the story tight and good rather than carrying around any unnecessary weight. I'm working on an action script right now at a major company and it's looking to be only 98 pages long! It has character moments, it has big action spectacle moments, just with this story being tight there was no need for any extra weight and adding any extra weight would ruin the script that it's turning out to be. Run time, I'm seeing this 98 pages as possibly becoming 105 minutes tops since it's an action film. I'm not saying that's what happened here. Just that you can never tell where those minutes are actually being spent until the final product. It could just be a 'tight' script.

I've seen movies that are actually good with short running times, it's just that it is like a unwritten rule. Short action movies in theaters are a no-no. Personally, I always think of a tv movie or a direct to video release. Seen good movies on both formats, just when going to the theater and paying big bucks, expect a longer running time. Ya know?

Then again, what do I know, I like the B-movie mess called 'A Sound of Thunder'. Only around 90 minutes. It's problem is mostly CGI, then script. Gosh, I could watch the action scenes from that movie any day of the week. It's like a somewhat more expensive SyFy movie of the week. Funny, cause UFO Films/Productions DID DO CGI work on it. They do movies for tv and in a very old demo reel they used to have online, it showed them working on the snake eel scene in the subway.

[Ultimatehero]

I'd say that is the absolute worst way of looking at things. One should never - ever - focus on just extending things for running time sake. If you can make it tighter, and I mean a good tightness then you're bound to end up with a much better film. Writers and directors should never ever be bound by "make this over this many minutes long!" That would result in a complete and total disaster because then they wouldn't be focused on making the best story possible, they would be focused on just serving a run time which is just a number. Story should always come first. No "this many pages long." While one story might be 98 pages, if longer it would drag and if shorter it would be too fast. While a 120 paged script if any pages were lost would become too fast and if any pages were added would become too long. The minutes or pages should always serve the story first and sometimes that differs from story to story. As said, here it might be intervention - yet it might also point to absolutely nothing. I'd rather have a good film than an overly long film that just has "fluff."

[culver3vlr22]

I just hope the movie is good that's all I care about F#%k the whole CGI thing I've seen plenty of Great movies with not so good CGI(whether because of the times it was made in or just plain bad).

I love every Die Hard movie and I mean LOVE. Everyday in high school In class wanted die hard to happen and me save the Hott girl haha.

I would say my favorites in order or DH, DH2, DH4, DH3. And I just wish DH5 can not just take its place last like I feel it will. But I go in with hopes not high nor low just hopes.

If this movie puts at least 5 smiles on my face ill walk out happy.. And I'm going to the marathon so ill be happy no matter what I get to Die Hard on the big screen !! Lol

[Marvolo]

Is it possible that the short running time is a result of the rating so that they can have more showings and make back some money they might lose due to the rating? Maybe Fox said you can have an R or a longer running time, but you can't have both.

[Ultimatehero]

That's entirely possible as well. As said there are three ways it can go:

1) They filmed off of a very tight script and it just came out to be that way.
2) Studio interference for money while still having a good film while not the best (does often happen).
3) Studio interference to try to salvage it (hopefully not, but it's also another possibility).

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Ultimatehero

That's entirely possible as well. As said there are two ways it can go:

1) They filmed off of a very tight script and it just came out to be that way.
2) Studio interference (does happen).

When its Fox it happens a lot.

[Ultimatehero]

Just split option 2 into 2 directions it can go.

With the old FOX, yes - I would have nightmares about working with them. With the new FOX? Not so much.

[ThePhantasm]

My fear is that this will be like Taken 2, which was 91 min. Taken 2's massive plot issues aside, the scenes felt like they were edited by a hyperactive ADHD squirrel. A scene would end just as soon as a character finished their sentence - no pauses. It was honestly some of the most bizarre editing I've seen for some time. It was obviously meant to make the movie feel faster and more action packed but instead it was confusing. Hopefully that's not the case here.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

My fear is that this will be like Taken 2, which was 91 min. Taken 2's massive plot issues aside, the scenes felt like they were edited by a hyperactive ADHD squirrel. A scene would end just as soon as a character finished their sentence - no pauses. It was honestly some of the most bizarre editing I've seen for some time. It was obviously meant to make the movie feel faster and more action packed but instead it was confusing. Hopefully that's not the case here.

I fell asleep watching Taken 2 so I hope this film is nothing like that POS.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

I fell asleep watching Taken 2 so I hope this film is nothing like that POS.

Lucky you. I kept watching hoping something would happen to redeem it. Instead I ended up laughing when Liam Neeson just grabbed a bad guy's face and the bad guy magically died because of it.