DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
 |
« Reply #225 on: August 01, 2011, 03:12:30 PM » |
|
None of those directors have enough clout to not get pushed around, so...
Also, McClane always has help from supporting characters. So, who cares?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke Erik
Posts: 7528
|
|
« Reply #226 on: August 01, 2011, 03:19:31 PM » |
|
None of those directors have enough clout to not get pushed around, so...
Also, McClane always has help from supporting characters. So, who cares?
I like my McClane getting his help via walkie talkie. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6865
|
|
« Reply #227 on: August 01, 2011, 03:19:55 PM » |
|
Also, McClane always has help from supporting characters. So, who cares?
McClane having another twentysomething sidekick is stupid. That's a studio decree because they're scared that kids won't go see a DIE HARD movie starring just this old bald guy. Same reason this will be PG-13 again. But I know you think LIVE FREE was the bee's knees, so we clearly have two different points of view on this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Lilley
Posts: 3780
|
|
« Reply #228 on: August 01, 2011, 03:27:27 PM » |
|
Is McTiernan still in jail? Why can't they just give it to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke Erik
Posts: 7528
|
|
« Reply #229 on: August 01, 2011, 03:31:16 PM » |
|
That's a studio decree because they're scared that kids won't go see a DIE HARD movie starring just this old bald guy.
That's stupid, but I completely understand the business motives behind it. But it's still stupid. As a kid I always thought the older the actor in a movie, the more badass he probably was. Jack>Keaton. Cleef>Eastwood. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #230 on: August 01, 2011, 04:12:56 PM » |
|
It seems like not bringing Justin Long back is an acknowledgement that nobody cared about Justin Long in Die Hard 4, but there they go trying the same thing again. It might make sense if there was a young actor who could remotely carry an action movie, but since I assume this isn't gonna be Shia LaBeouf, I don't get it. I just don't get kids today, with their hula hoops and curly fries.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6865
|
|
« Reply #231 on: August 01, 2011, 04:26:15 PM » |
|
They should cast Anton Yelchin as McClane Jr. and have him do a Bruno impression the entire time. That's the only way this works.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
|
« Reply #232 on: August 01, 2011, 05:42:40 PM » |
|
It seems like not bringing Justin Long back is an acknowledgement that nobody cared about Justin Long in Die Hard 4, but there they go trying the same thing again. It might make sense if there was a young actor who could remotely carry an action movie, but since I assume this isn't gonna be Shia LaBeouf, I don't get it. I just don't get kids today, with their hula hoops and curly fries.
But nobody really carries over in Die Hard movies. In Die Hard 2, they barely tried it and that was fine, but Die Hard is just McClane and McClane only. Not that I'm jonesing for Justin Long to come back or anything. I feel that the Russia angle seems boring if McClane isn't going to be fun. Why aren't they doing a 24 crossover again? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #233 on: August 01, 2011, 06:05:23 PM » |
|
But nobody really carries over in Die Hard movies.
That's all certainly true, but any "rule" you can point to for the franchise, there's an exception somewhere, even though there's only four movies. It just seems strange to me to think (as they appear to) "Well, that young-guy-with-McClane thing worked so well the last time," [which it didn't] "let's do it again but start from scratch with a different kid." When Dirty Harry changed partners, it was always a very different partner. What about McClane with a talking dog? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6865
|
|
« Reply #234 on: August 01, 2011, 06:06:11 PM » |
|
But nobody really carries over in Die Hard movies. In Die Hard 2, they barely tried it and that was fine, but Die Hard is just McClane and McClane only. Not that I'm jonesing for Justin Long to come back or anything. I feel that the Russia angle seems boring if McClane isn't going to be fun. Why aren't they doing a 24 crossover again?
I don't demand that characters carry over from movie to movie. It would be nice to see Holly and Al again, but DIE HARD 2 felt a bit shoehorny with the returning characters, especially by sticking in Thornberg for no reason. Though I still maintain that it would have been a nice touch if McClane's superior in LIVE FREE had been Walter Cobb. It was one scene and I'm sure that actor wasn't busy. Anyway, my real issue is saddling McClane with a junior sidekick. I like Long, but even he couldn't make that work. But for all we know, maybe his son will be a hostage, not a sidekick. The Russia thing also concerns me. If it's something smaller-scale that just happens to be set in Russia, that's cool, but my hunch is that if they're going to the trouble of setting and shooting it in Russia, McClane isn't going to be saving a bus station. More likely (especially given how the stakes keep going up with each sequel), he'll be saving the US from thermonuclear war. And he's a lowly NYPD cop, not Jack Bauer, so that will be stupid. And speaking of Jack Bauer, I think Kiefer shot down that crossover idea because he wanted a regular 24 movie to come out first. But since there's no evidence at the moment that a regular 24 movie is coming out ever, that might have been a foolhardy decision. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #235 on: August 01, 2011, 06:12:50 PM » |
|
especially by sticking in Thornberg for no reason. I kind of think they should've always had Thornberg pop up. I mean, he's a reporter, they could make it work. I think 2 left such a bad taste in the mouths of everybody associated for just going through the same motions again that they threw out the idea of ever having recurring characters again. More likely (especially given how the stakes keep going up with each sequel), he'll be saving the US from thermonuclear war. And he's a lowly NYPD cop, not Jack Bauer, so that will be stupid. I agree with this, though obviously it's a total assumption. The one positive thing about Russia is that they *might* be able to get back the spirit of "Nobody believes him because he has no official capacity or power" from the old ones. Does the villain in 2 have some deeper scheme where it's all about money? Because it would be funny if the damned Commies were starting a nuclear war, but really it was just to get money in some backward-ass way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
|
« Reply #236 on: August 01, 2011, 06:23:46 PM » |
|
I also think because DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE was a spec script that they turned into a Die Hard movie, that they didn't want to spend any time trying to put those other characters in there. Although, we shan't forget that Holly is actually in it in a voice cameo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #237 on: August 01, 2011, 06:55:56 PM » |
|
Weren't all of the 'Die Hard' sequels re-written specs? (Whereas the first one was based on a novel that was a sequel to a novel Frank Sinatra adapted?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6865
|
|
« Reply #238 on: August 01, 2011, 06:59:54 PM » |
|
I wonder if they're going to simply call this one DIE HARD 5 or come up with another cutesy title, possibly with a Russkie theme. If so, I'd like to nominate DIE HARD: DASVIDANYA.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9494
|
|
« Reply #239 on: August 01, 2011, 07:01:55 PM » |
|
Well, they set out to adapt another novel into DIE HARD 2, but wanted to keep a lot of the cast and plot elements because the first was a huge hit and it was a priority for the studio. The third was under consideration to be LETHAL WEAPON 4. I think the fourth was specifically written as a Die Hard movie but was based off a Wired magazine article or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
