Die Hard 6

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Bruce Willis is on board with this awful idea because he likes money.

 

[Teelie]

Bruce Willis http://trib.al/VGjtcgN

Bruce Willis is on board with this awful idea because he likes money.

I was going to say something similar. He's on board because hello easy paycheck. He bookends the movie and gets paid far too much to do nothing.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I'm not defending this movie at all, but I think people overrate the "Everyman" aspect of John McClane in Die Hard. He's not really an Everyman; he's a badass cop who has been on the force for 11 years. Granted, it's clear he has never dealt with a threat of this magnitude before, but he does things most ordinary people would get killed trying to do. So I think that a McClane prequel that follows his early days as a New York cop could actually work. However, it would have to be careful to steer clear of McClane saving large groups of people taken hostage so it doesn't take a crap on the concept of the original film. Unfortunately, that's probably exactly what they'll do with it... Show McClane in a Die Hard-type of scenario, only before the original Die Hard scenario.

So stupid.

 

[Marvolo]

Bruce Willis http://trib.al/VGjtcgN

I like what Joblo said about Willis's comment:

Now for those of you who might not speak Bruce Willis, allow me to translate for you.

"I can't believe they still want to make these movies, and they want to pay me a lot for them, too. I stopped trying like two sequels ago, but they don't care. DIE HARD is DIE HARD, so what the hell...? I can do this movie in my sleep... Just don't scratch my face."

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/bruce-willis-has-some-thoughts-on-die-hard-year-one-167

And thats the truth. Willis gets to half ass another role and make an easy paycheck. I dont really blame him, but Bruce's stamp of approval means jack **** at this point.

 

[Teelie]

By everyman it does not mean he's some untrained novice. He's a normal, human cop who has experience dealing with street thugs and probably the occasional bruiser for the mob. He was not in SWAT, was not trained by the military or had any kind of advanced hand to hand combat or anything.

In that sense he is no better than Sgt Powell. Only a bit younger and in better shape.

 

[The Joker]

Bruce Willis is on board with this awful idea because he likes money.

Bingo

 

[flickchick85]

If anyone thought Bruce Willis would not be supportive of this idea, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Flick someone has offered me a better deal on the Golden Gate in SF.

 

[flickchick85]

Take their offer. Trust me, you won't regret it.

 

[dude stannis]

Bruce Willis would suppourt Human Centipede 4 if it meant he got paid.

 

[spider-neil]

The film makers have completely lost what made the first Die Hard so great. The vulnerability of the hero, the claustrophobia and the seemingly impossible odds he faced. They have taken McClean and turned him into Superman. ZZZZZZZZZZ

I'm not watching the next Die Hard in theatres after the frankly disgraceful DH5.

 

[Lencho01]

'Die Hard' Fan Who Took out Full-Page THR Ad for New Movie Pitch: "My Chances Are Slim to None"

Mark Millar Pitches in on That ‘Die Hard 6′ Pitch

 

[Lord]

Their proposals are kinda exciting.

 

[flickchick85]

Certainly sounds more interesting than what they currently have planned, but it's not gonna happen, so oh well.

 

[Lord]

That kinda suck, as Mark Millar has lead into bigger boxoffice successes than Len's

 

[Teelie]

That idea of John McClane in a prison is a lot more interesting than whatever prequel crap they are trying to come up with.

 

[spider-neil]

It's obvious why Die has badly lost its way. What made the first Die Hard so compelling is how badly McClane was out gunned and out numbered. He was an ordinary cop facing impossible odds and was surviving mostly through dumb luck.
They have turned McClane into an indestructible Superman and at no time do you doubt he will survive regardless of the odds. That's not compelling, that's boring.

 

[Lord]

Die Hard 1 was lightning in a bottle, it's actualy very surprising how good the 2nd and 3rd films were when you take that into account. Anyway, the franchise has been brought to such lows that it deserves a passionate final entry like the ones this fan and Millar are pitching. After that, it's time to retire it, it's not as if this was that big of a money making film series.

I wonder if Dirty Harry would have also ended up this way had it started 10 years after it did.

 

[Mysteryman]

The Dirty Harry Franchise just stopped.
I would have preferred some closure to the franchise.
That having been said, I preferred the final entry in that series,The Dead Pool to Live Free or Die Hard.

 

[Uptown Finest]

I always liked the idea of a DH6 taking place in the jungle with the CIA having John go to South America to save American hostages from terrorists. Wouldn't of mine another team up with his son who the CIA could of had joined John in the mission.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Len Wiseman gives update:

http://collider.com/die-hard-year-o...utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=collidersocial

Wiseman is describing Year One as a “prequel / sequel,” saying that after Live Free or Die Hard, he and Willis talked about John McClane’s origins, and how they could explore more about what made him the man he is, saying:

“After doing the fourth one, there were so many conversations that Bruce [Willis] and I were having about what he put into the character for Die Hard 1. That character comes in with so much baggage, emotionally, and experience. He’s already divorced, he’s bitter, his Captain hates him and doesn’t want him back. So, what created that guy?”

“We’ve never seen the actual love story. We know its demise, but we’ve never seen what it was like when he met Holly, or when he was a beat cop in ‘78 in New York when there was no chance of him making detective. It’s always been something I’ve been thinking about, and now we’re doing it. And it ties in.”

“The reason I say prequel/sequel is because I wasn’t going to do it without Bruce. I’m also not going to do it with Bruce being a cameo bookend gimmick. It’s really working into the plot, with the ‘70s having ramifications on present-day Bruce. It inter-cuts in a very fun, imaginative way with present-day John McClane.”

“The film itself will take place on New Years’ Eve 1979, so trying to gear things towards that would be fun, if we could come out around the same time, but these movies take their own paths.”

Wiseman also suggested that the production will be looking to cast an unknown actor, since McClane as a character is so inextricably linked to Bruce Willis. As far as any specifics, though, Wiseman did say,

“It has to be somebody that has the swagger and the confidence, but also the charm, the wit, the charisma and the toughness. It’s asking a lot, especially in somebody that’s younger. It has to feel like the guy owns it, rather than is trying to put it on.”

 

[TheVileOne]

I like Wiseman a lot, but I feel this project is a waste of his talents. Not sure why he always goes back to films like this.

 

[batfreakforever]

We have no choice in this. Just hope it brings something new to John's story/arc. Hope this is the last and it's a satisfying conclusion to the series. Never know. It might good that we clamour for another one but highly doubt that. If the last one was good we might be excited for this one. Its coming from the man who did Die hard 4 so I have some hope. Something big has to happen with this one to make us care again. Make what made us care about the first 4. 5 needed to make us feel for John but didn't and just had action. I don't mind it but it doesn't make me want to watch it as much as the previous 4 and didn't really further his story. Its was more about his son. Die hard is John's story. So yeah this might be good if it flows into the John from Die hard 1.

 

[dude stannis]

 

[TheVileOne]

You see I don't really get why those elements and questions Wiseman is asking are important. Why is the love story even important anymore at this point? They got rid of his wife after the second movie. Their divorce happened offscreen. So if it's that insignificant, why do we need to go back and find out why they fell in love?

Think about it. When we first watched Die Hard, did we have those questions? Did we need them answered? Not really. Those were not important to tell the story. We didn't need to see how John McClane went from being an average beat cop to becoming a detective. Also the whole point of Die Hard was that John McClane was this average joe who was in over his head and had not experienced anything remotely like this and was just getting by on the skin of his teeth.

It's just that this is what's happening in order to justify this flashback narrative's existence. They are literally scraping at the bottom of the barrel to try and keep this franchise afloat after making a terrible sequel no one liked.