Die Hard Series Vs. Lethal Weapon Series

[DarkKnight88]

They both defined the action genre of the late 80's. They both have the same number of sequels. So what do you think? Which was the better action series AS A WHOLE? Lethal Weapon or Die Hard?

Lethal Weapon (1987) vs Die Hard (1988) = Die Hard
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) vs Die Hard 2 (1990) = Lethal Weapon 2
Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) vs Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995) = Die Hard: With a Vengeance
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) vs Live Free or Die Hard (2007) = Live Free or Die Hard

 

[Soapy]

Die Hard.

 

[Octoberist]

Die Hard.

I've got a soft spot for Die Hard with a Vengence. Very fun movie.

 

[wiegeabo]

They both defined the action genre of the late 80's. They both have the same number of sequels. So what do you think? Which was the better action series AS A WHOLE? Lethal Weapon or Die Hard?

Lethal Weapon (1987) vs Die Hard (1988) = Die Hard
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) vs Die Hard 2 (1990) = Lethal Weapon 2
Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) vs Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995) = Die Hard: With a Vengeance
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) vs Live Free or Die Hard (2007) = Live Free or Die Hard

That's about how I'd rate it too.

 

[Octoberist]

My problem with Lethal Weapon 4 was it was just a showcase for Jet Lie and Chris Rock. Not at one point it felt like a real movie. It was contrived, though it does have some entertainment value.

 

[Crockett]

It'll have to be the Die Hard series, I'll never get tired of seeing the first and the third Die Hard.

 

[Haff]

To be honest I really like both series and I had difficulty choosing but Die Hard wins by just a hair.

 

[Mace Bloodstone]

Die Hard was great, Lethal Weapon was good.... Die Hard sequels are watchable, Leathal Weapon's are garbage.

 

[Figs]

I love both but Die Hard comes out on top..

 

[Brother Jack]

Die Hard. It has two good films in it vs. Lethal Weapon which only has one.

 

[webhead731]

I'm a die hard fan of that series.

Die Hard all the way though. I love the Lethal Weapon movies just fine, but Die Hard...

 

[Lobo]

Agreed with everyone above. Lethal Weapon was/is very good, Die Hard is great

 

[Catman]

I can't believe I'm the only one who voted for Lethal Weapon.

Lethal Weapon is a masterpiece in the action genre. This isn't a film about some wisecracking cop stuck in a building for two hours. There's an actual story with drama and character development. Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is a guy on the edge. He lost his wife in a car accident and can't live without her. And, yet, he can't pull the trigger either. The only way for him to go out is in a blaze of glory. Then there's Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) who's the opposite of Riggs. He's a respected cop with a family. They get paired up, naturally, and immediately clash. But their partnership is almost like therapy. Riggs makes a friend and becomes part of his extended family. Murtaugh, who turned 50 at the start of the movie, gets to have some fun again. Even if he complains all the time about being too old for this [censored]. So, what's Die Hard about again? Oh, yeah, a wisecracking cop stuck in a building for two hours.

Lethal Weapon 2 lightens things up with a lot of humor and a comic relief in the form of Leo Getz (Joe Pesci). Plus, Riggs' misery is now turned into a cliche' revenge story. So, yeah, it's a step down from the original but it has a well-written script with one of the most genius ideas for a villain ever. Meanwhile, Die Hard 2 is about a wisecracking cop stuck in an airport for two hours.

Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy the Die Hard series and the last two installments are superior to the final two Lethal Weapon films, but the entire series is mindless entertainment in comparison to the Lethal Weapon franchise.

 

[bullets]

I voted Die Hard , I love that series .

 

[lespaul59]

I can't believe I'm the only one who voted for Lethal Weapon.

Lethal Weapon is a masterpiece in the action genre. This isn't a film about some wisecracking cop stuck in a building for two hours. There's an actual story with drama and character development. Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is a guy on the edge. He lost his wife in a car accident and can't live without her. And, yet, he can't pull the trigger either. The only way for him to go out is in a blaze of glory. Then there's Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) who's the opposite of Riggs. He's a respected cop with a family. They get paired up, naturally, and immediately clash. But their partnership is almost like therapy. Riggs makes a friend and becomes part of his extended family. Murtaugh, who turned 50 at the start of the movie, gets to have some fun again. Even if he complains all the time about being too old for this [censored]. So, what's Die Hard about again? Oh, yeah, a wisecracking cop stuck in a building for two hours.

Lethal Weapon 2 lightens things up with a lot of humor and a comic relief in the form of Leo Getz (Joe Pesci). Plus, Riggs' misery is now turned into a cliche' revenge story. So, yeah, it's a step down from the original but it has a well-written script with one of the most genius ideas for a villain ever. Meanwhile, Die Hard 2 is about a wisecracking cop stuck in an airport for two hours.

Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy the Die Hard series and the last two installments are superior to the final two Lethal Weapon films, but the entire series is mindless entertainment in comparison to the Lethal Weapon franchise.

I can go with this. The only way I might have a different of opinions on is depending on my mood I might like LW: 3 and/or 4 better than DH: 3 and/or 4.

 

[bullets]

Lethal Weapon is a masterpiece in the action genre. This isn't a film about some wisecracking cop stuck in a building for two hours. There's an actual story with drama and character development.
.

There is a story with drama and character development ging on in Die Hard believe it or not. Leathal weapon is just a crazy cop teaming with a normal cop. hilarity ensues. j/k

 

[wiegeabo]

I can't believe I'm the only one who voted for Lethal Weapon.

Lethal Weapon is a masterpiece in the action genre. This isn't a film about some wisecracking cop stuck in a building for two hours. There's an actual story with drama and character development. Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is a guy on the edge. He lost his wife in a car accident and can't live without her. And, yet, he can't pull the trigger either. The only way for him to go out is in a blaze of glory. Then there's Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) who's the opposite of Riggs. He's a respected cop with a family. They get paired up, naturally, and immediately clash. But their partnership is almost like therapy. Riggs makes a friend and becomes part of his extended family. Murtaugh, who turned 50 at the start of the movie, gets to have some fun again. Even if he complains all the time about being too old for this [censored]. So, what's Die Hard about again? Oh, yeah, a wisecracking cop stuck in a building for two hours.

Lethal Weapon 2 lightens things up with a lot of humor and a comic relief in the form of Leo Getz (Joe Pesci). Plus, Riggs' misery is now turned into a cliche' revenge story. So, yeah, it's a step down from the original but it has a well-written script with one of the most genius ideas for a villain ever. Meanwhile, Die Hard 2 is about a wisecracking cop stuck in an airport for two hours.

Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy the Die Hard series and the last two installments are superior to the final two Lethal Weapon films, but the entire series is mindless entertainment in comparison to the Lethal Weapon franchise.

If this was just the first movies against each other, I don't know how I would have voted. Both are among the pinnacle of lone cop/buddy cop action flicks. They're both as much about character as about the action.

2 and Harder are both solid movies, not as good as the originals. I'll give this pairing to Lethal. There are some things about Lethal I don't like (Leo really gets on my nerves except for a couple of scenes), but Harder felt all over the place and was almost too big in scale (ironic seeing the scale of Vengeance).

I put Vengeance well above 3. I like 3 a little less every time I see it. In fact, I haven't watched it in years. But I watch Vengeance almost every time it's on. Where Harder didn't know how to handle the large scale, Vengeance handled an even larger scale very well.

I wouldn't put Live Free well above 4, but it would still above it. They're both the weakest of the series, feeling the least like a Lethal/Die Hard film. And while 4 was fun in the theater, I've tried watching it since, and it mostly falls flat now. It's all over the place and only feels like a Lethal movie in places. Live Free Die Hard shot itself (no pun intended) by going for the PG-13 rating, but it's still a tighter movie than 4. And it leaves you guessing while keeping the suspense up.

 

[dude stannis]

I have y k y m f tattooed on my right arm. That should give you the pretty clear idea I would vote Die Hard on any poll.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

i go with Die Hard

love the first and the third. the second is ok, and i didn't really think much of the fourth; seemed too over the top for me

i love Lethal Weapon though. the first is definately the best. unlike Die Hard though, the Lethal Weapon films are more comedy than action i think. Joe Pesci's character was hilarious t:

 

[Catman]

They're both as much about character as about the action.

Not really. People don't realize it, but Die Hard is a borderline action-comedy. John McClane is supposed to be funny. That's why they hired Bruce Willis who was only known for comedies at the time. So, there really isn't much development for the character other than seeing how many funny (or outrageous) situations they can put him through. Martin Riggs, on the other hand, is a tragic character. In the first movie anyway. I mean, we never saw John McClane do this:

[YT]UpOqkz86_lg[/YT]

 

[bullets]

John McClane jumped onto the wing of a plane from a helicopter , he has suicidal tendencies masked by acts of heroism.

 

[dude stannis]

Not really. People don't realize it, but Die Hard is a borderline action-comedy. John McClane is supposed to be funny. That's why they hired Bruce Willis who was only known for comedies at the time. So, there really isn't much development for the character other than seeing how many funny (or outrageous) situations they can put him through. Martin Riggs, on the other hand, is a tragic character. In the first movie anyway. I mean, we never saw John McClane do this:

[YT]UpOqkz86_lg[/YT]

He had the scene in the bathroom, picking out glass from his feet and crying to Powell on the radio. That was more powerful than Lethal Weapon's opening scene.

 

[BigSams50]

Lethal Weapon for me. Love that series

 

[bonoferox]

Die Hard

Riggs and Murtaugh still can't match up to one McClain.

 

[baerrtt]

Not really. People don't realize it, but Die Hard is a borderline action-comedy. John McClane is supposed to be funny. That's why they hired Bruce Willis who was only known for comedies at the time. So, there really isn't much development for the character other than seeing how many funny (or outrageous) situations they can put him through. Martin Riggs, on the other hand, is a tragic character. In the first movie anyway. I mean, we never saw John McClane do this:

[YT]UpOqkz86_lg[/YT]

DH gave it's lead hero much more subtle character drama than the borderline Oscar baiting scenes of Gibson's Riggs trying to kill himself.

The realistic little scene where McClane sees police cars on the horizon and lets out a relieved sound of joy hoping that the situation will be resolved without him having or trying to get involved or the crucial moment when believing he's going to die stopping Hans he sincerely tells Al over the radio that he screwed up his marriage to Holly reveal a much more human and relatable character than Riggs whose comedic banter feels out of place (come the sequels especially) with his dark, suicidal tendencies.