Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

    A lot of the side characters are pointless and just pad the runtime. Al Powell and Dwayne T. Robinson- and especially Richard Thronburg- are just annoying, and the movie grinds to a halt whenever they're on screen bickering.
    Wow, it takes all kinds doesn't it? Al Powell is a pointless character??!!! Surely the above statement is grounds for, if not pemanent removal, at a minimum a lengthy suspension from the boards!

    I watched Die Hard (for probably the 30-oddth time) at the PCC in London a few years ago - Al's first appearance got the biggest cheer of the night - so there's 150+ people that disagree with you.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

      Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
      Yes there is. 20 minutes with no hint of the main plot, no glimpse of the antagonists or shady goings-on is extremely out of the ordinary. I'm no slave to templates but try and find one that perpetuates the above. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single film that does the same.
      It takes 25 or minutes for Liam Neeson's daughter to get taken in Taken (a movie that doesn't even have a traditional villain).
      It takes half an hour or more for the Marines to reach LV-426 in Aliens.

      So I don't think it's that out of the ordinary.

      Goals don't have to be memorable. Hans being a terrorist would have robbed the film of depicting his cunning and McClane's difficulty in being taken seriously by the cops as nothing supports his assertion Hans is lying to them.
      The problem is that their behavior doesn't really add up. They plan and organize like terrorists. Their rationale for attacking Nakatomi has some terroristic logic to it. Having the twist where Hans is suddenly just a thief detracted from his character, not added to it. It didn't have a point. Why not have him steal the bearer bonds so he can fund his activities or allies or something?

      Taking over a skyscraper, executing a CEO, planning to blow up hostages, etc. seems very extreme for a robbery, like the kind of thing that doesn't happen unless there's a hardcore ideology behind it. But Hans didn't have an ideology, he literally went through all that so he could sit on a beach with some money. Weak.

      Alec Trevelyan, the villain in Goldeneye, had a similar plan, though his had a personal element to it. He wasn't just robbing the British government, he was going to destroy all financial records as payback for how they got his family killed after WW2. Trevelyan isn't as popular as Hans but his characterization made a lot more sense.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

        Originally posted by entlassen View Post
        The problem is that their behavior doesn't really add up. They plan and organize like terrorists. Their rationale for attacking Nakatomi has some terroristic logic to it. Having the twist where Hans is suddenly just a thief detracted from his character, not added to it. It didn't have a point. Why not have him steal the bearer bonds so he can fund his activities or allies or something?
        sure it does. "Well, when you steal $600, you can just disappear. When you steal 600 million, they will find you, unless they think you're already dead."

        "Who said we were terrorists?" they're thieves. they're robbing Nakatomi because that's where the money is.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

          Originally posted by entlassen View Post
          It takes 25 or minutes for Liam Neeson's daughter to get taken in Taken (a movie that doesn't even have a traditional villain).
          Not so fast. There is not 25 minutes of familial drama. At bang-on 11 minutes there's a knife-wielding man attacks a singer Liam Neeson is protecting and Neeson shows us what he can do (and is the reason we're watching. Although not directly linked to his daughter, it's close enough and foreshadowing.


          It takes half an hour or more for the Marines to reach LV-426 in Aliens. So I don't think it's that out of the ordinary.
          Landing on LV-426 is way past the inciting incident. In the uncut version the inciting incident is at 18 mins (terraformer attack)) and though that's roughly the same as Die Hard, Cameron's film is 45 minutes longer. Though this was edited from the theatrical release, we still have Ripley's chestburster sequence at 8 minutes which ties us over nicely until she get the news (at 16 mins) that contact has been lost on LV-426 and agrees to go along 3 minutes later.

          Add to this the ever-constant discussion about the aliens - when she's explaining the events of the first film to the Weyland board (plus her later explanations to the Nostromo crew) means the aliens are ever-present in our minds so it doesn't matter if we don't see one for real until the first melee (when Apone and Frost bite it). At no point are we unaware of what the film is about and working towards. And though unseen as yet, the alien presence is overt.

          In order for Aliens to fit Die Hard's schematic there would have to be zero mention of aliens whatsoever. We would have to be watching Ellen Ripley happily going about her life for 18-20 minutes and that simply did not happen.



          The problem is that their behavior doesn't really add up. They plan and organize like terrorists.
          They're like terrorists just because they're highly-organised? They acted like an SAS death squad but you wouldn't call special ops 'terrorists'.


          Their rationale for attacking Nakatomi has some terroristic logic to it. Having the twist where Hans is suddenly just a thief detracted from his character, not added to it. It didn't have a point. Why not have him steal the bearer bonds so he can fund his activities or allies or something?
          Attacking Nakatomi was central to his plans so it definitely had a point. As Joe said, the plan is to disappear via the illusion of death. And it absolutely added to his character because it shows how intelligent Hans is, always one step ahead of everyone (the boss, Ellis, McClane, police, FBI, and even McClane).

          Through attacking the tower he is not only ensuring the power is cut so he can get the vault open, not only covering his tracks as to why he's in there. but also ensuring they stop looking for him because he's a dead terrorist.



          Taking over a skyscraper, executing a CEO, planning to blow up hostages, etc. seems very extreme for a robbery, like the kind of thing that doesn't happen unless there's a hardcore ideology behind it. But Hans didn't have an ideology, he literally went through all that so he could sit on a beach with some money. Weak.
          Willing to destroy and kill is extreme for a robbery? That happens over thousands of dollars let alone $640m. That sum is equivalent to $1.3 billion in today's money and you say it's weak? And to get away scot-free when otherwise he would be hunted for the rest of his life? Assuming he planned an even split of the funds, that's $53m ($110m today) to literally disappear and earn 20%. That is massively-understandable motivation.

          His goal isn't to live on a beach - that was mere illustration of how slow the feds were as a result of his ingenious his plan.
          Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 01-14-2018, 10:18 AM.
          M.A.G.A.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

            Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
            Add to this the ever-constant discussion about the aliens - when she's explaining the events of the first film to the Weyland board (plus her later explanations to the Nostromo crew) means the aliens are ever-present in our minds so it doesn't matter if we don't see one for real until the first melee (when Apone and Frost bite it).
            We do see one early on, when Newt's dad comes running back to the car with the alien larva or whatever it's called stuck to his face.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

              Originally posted by Rantanplan View Post
              We do see one early on, when Newt's dad comes running back to the car with the alien larva or whatever it's called stuck to his face.
              Yeah, that's the bit I referred to at 18 mins in the extended version.
              M.A.G.A.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

                Wasn't the inciting incident John deciding to try and reunite with his wife? Isn't that why he was on the plane? Unless he's a professional air-marshal and flying on planes to LA is his normal life routine - which this time involves somebody telling him how to remove his shoes to relax - which makes him decide to go visit his wife....?

                From what I know of the three-act structure I'd say we enter the film midway through what would otherwise have been a very long act I.

                Anybody agree?
                "Now we're getting someplace".
                Oliver Hardy, 'The Music Box'.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

                  Originally posted by zarker99 View Post
                  Wasn't the inciting incident John deciding to try and reunite with his wife? Isn't that why he was on the plane? Unless he's a professional air-marshal and flying on planes to LA is his normal life routine - which this time involves somebody telling him how to remove his shoes to relax - which makes him decide to go visit his wife....?

                  From what I know of the three-act structure I'd say we enter the film midway through what would otherwise have been a very long act I.

                  Anybody agree?
                  that's his reason for being in Nakatomi Tower when the terrorists attack, but their arrival in the building is the inciting incident of the plot

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

                    Originally posted by JoeBanks View Post
                    that's his reason for being in Nakatomi Tower when the terrorists attack, but their arrival in the building is the inciting incident of the plot
                    Exactly.

                    BTW, cant find Joe vs the Volcano anywhere.
                    M.A.G.A.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Die Hard - Ultimate Action Film Breaks Rules of Action Films

                      Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                      BTW, cant find Joe vs the Volcano anywhere.
                      it's on iTunes

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X