Is Die Hard a XMAS movie?

This response is about one step away from a "it's just a movie!"-style dismisal; I mean, it's fine if you want to view Die Hard as "just" entertainment, and I wasn't bothering you for doing so... but why are you bothered if I want to talk about the deeper cultural meanings that the movie carries, especially if I'm doing so in a positive manner? Movies are a form of art, after all, and it's not like we need to divide stuff like 2001 from "popcorn flicks", and only ever analyze the films that we feel fall into the more "arthouse" category, so why do so? And what's the point of posting on a movie discussion board if you're going to try to discourage actual movie discussion?

Die Hard might be fun entertainment first and foremost, but that doesn't mean it can't have deeper themes. John McClane's marriage is a story arc throughout the first three films, and it kinda saddens me they just abandoned it after that (Not mentioning Holly even once in Live Free Or Die Hard). To dismiss any introspective discussion of its content not only makes the conversation dry and boring, but does a disservice to the movie itself as if it's nothing more than a shallow popcorn flick.
I know people can overreach and misinterpet movies quite often nowadays, but StuSmallz wasn't even doing that.

__________________

Yup; in fact, my whole point here was to criticize other people for misinterpreting Die Hard, and it feels like DSM is just lumping me in the same group as them, regardless of what my actual points are. I mean, I get being annoyed in general at people looking online for excuses to whine about movies being "problematic" (I get annoyed by that too sometimes myself), but that is very much not what I was doing in this thread, and in fact, I was very much doing the opposite of that here.

All things considered, I've really thought about this in recent days.

First off, when I initially came on here 10+ years ago. I made associations with people, and by and large the demeanor was that "Let's have 'real' talk about film, [and on and on]."

But since the time I've been back, I seem to find myself talking to myself no matter what I do. [Once again finding no source of friends]. And the fact that now most everyone wants to be "in vogue" with the latest sexual-racial-political-"esque" "film" philosophy without much discussion or dissection of the philosophy itself without screaming matches and hurt feelings [on both sides, myself included], perma-bans, and thread locks. Not much "really" can be said.

Most everyone I used to know on here is gone. And those that have remained feed the crumbs they have, God speed. But the generation now filling into these boards I don't understand at all. So maybe you're right. What is the point? Maybe I'll be on my way. Or maybe I'll browse. Or post my piddles from time to time as I have been doing. What's the point indeed. Times change.

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage

That wasn't what was happening in here, though; everyone else was getting along fine, whether or not they were discussing the gender dynamics of Die Hard, and then you came in and started randomly complaining about "Millennials" in here virtue-signaling about being offended by that aspect of the movie, when no such thing was happening. Again, I respect being annoyed by that when it's happening, but it wasn't happening in here, and acting like it was just feels like an over-eager act of projection to me.

Dissent is good, but not popular. Dissent is falling out of favor in our culture (or perhaps more accurately, being stamped out) and thus becomes even more vital in a free and open society. It also means that there are more people unaccustomed to dissent and they are emboldened by a homogeneity of thought around them to try to shout it down. It is a dangerous cultural development.

I encourage you to swing your elbows when you feel one-dimensional thought is overtaking and dominating discussion, even if it means it bloodies a few noses. But that is easy for me to recommend as delivering some elbows means you take several in return. Unpopular speech is, after all, unpopular, but important nonetheless.

Die Hard is not the hill to die on.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

For me a movie has to be considered a Christmas movie if it factors into the plot. You can't just have a movie have a scene or two during Christmas and call it a Christmas movie. If you take Christmas out of the movie...does it change the story at all?

So does it factor into the plot? Yes it does. If you take Christmas out of the narrative, does it change anything? Yes it does.

McClane is going to visit his wife for Christmas. Why else would he be involved in this story?

The terrorist invade the building during a Christmas party because it wouldn't be full of people and key individuals would be there. Why else would people be there after hours?

It takes place on Christmas Eve.

Christmas music plays throughout the film.


So to me, it is a Christmas movie.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

In regards to the 'woke' vs the 'anti woke' debate, I've personally found both sides absolutely exhausting to deal with.


Like many, I've found the semantics that all too frequently bog down conversations and then vilify so many innocuous or out of context comments to be stifling. I have no time for those who do not have the empathy to understand that becoming better people is always a process and even the best of us have had to shed a number of unpleasant skins along the way. Nothing good comes from a society which doesn't allow for missteps and is always disdainful towards apologies. Without the hope of 'redemption', we are stamping out a lot of the reason why people might want to change for the (hopefully) better.



Ultimately, I've found this kind of dogma has had a paralyzing effect on debate and, as a result, it has removed the kind of important contrarianism that is necessary to shore up the weak spots of our most dearly held views. It's an intellectual dead end. One that has personally made me more and more frequently not even bother when I have a disagreement with how I think a cause needs to move forwards. More often than not, some Twitter Dumb out there has already decided what path needs to be taken, and any encouragement to even move a few degrees from that route will be treated like the words of an enemy. Because I don't like to have to see how shallow and disinegenous so many of my supposed 'allies' have become, I keep myself from ever encouraging them to talk for longer than I can bare it.


And then there are the 'anti woke', who are just as insufferable, but then have the added bonus of frequently having a world view that I find deeply unpleasant. Their blind spot seems to consistently be a refusal to look either inward or outward in a way that might not always cast themselves, or the society they live in, in a great light. That any criticism towards the way they may talk or act is an act of war. A war where they casts themselves as the perpetual victims of being asked to reflect on the effect of their actions. And seemingly because they can't get over not being viewed as the most injured of parties, its depressing how often some of theses sorts will view taking the feelings of others (often marginalized others) into consideration as a sign of weakness. Or a thing that should always be treated with skepticism. And good lord, let's not even get into their confusion over 'criticism' about their opinions as being 'oppression' or 'fascism'. For such tough talkers, they generally have even thinner skin than those wokies I outlined above.


So, basically, what we need is a Thunderdome type situation. But one where two men might enter, but no one leaves. Send all of the above doofus' there (my hope always being that the worst of these lot are just a very loud minority) and let's leave the discussions to those who are willing to move ideas forward, and not stagnate out of fear we say the wrong thing. Who are willing to deal with controversial opinions occassionally. But also aren't eager to steamroll over the feelings of others as a complete irrelevancy, or like to tout that the world doesn't have to play fair (as they sit upon their tower of whatever advantages they've already accumulated).



Only then can we come to the proper conclusion that Die Hard is not a ****ing Christmas movie.

Hey man, I'm in my mid 30's and I'm considered a millennial. People like to throw crap towards "millennials" when I think it's actually the 'next' generation that like to stir things up. But hey, I'm straying away from the topic at hand.

His wife is named Holly.....It's a Christmas movie.

Millennials are the only generation that haven't grabbed pitch forks, even with all the **** getting slung at us. I think that says a lot more about us and our ideals than the people flinging the ****.

And...lol

I've been around enough to come to the conclusion that people are stubborn and live and die by their beliefs and opinions. I'm no exception to that race. [So...] I will have my plot and I'll till it as I will, and so too will my neighbor. We don't have to like or, (more aptly), "agree" with each other. But perhaps the best act of respect and "staying off each other's yard" is that of allowing my neighbor to till his land, and he my own. Which admittedly, (and finding fault within my own self here), I crossed into that. This is not an exercise of "flaming out" or "bearing some 'philosophical cross'." On the contrary. It's more about just picking and choosing what works for me. [Which seems to be...] My "Format Thread" and much anything else in regards to "aesthetics and film history." So I'll stick to that. Appreciate the words.

Admittedly, [and to be fair as I re-read my statement], where I was wrong was in such quote about "finding offense." That, (more directly), had to do with that other user who went to ground over using "Xmas" and not "Christmas," (which seems oh-so-typical of much of most things things day). So if I did falsely labeled you, I apologize. But in admittance, I also find over-analyzing "gender roles" in basically every film to be "not my cup of tea."

For reference, "I" am a "Millennial" and I'm man enough to admit I find my "most" of generation lacking in a sort of "Genuine Class."

Oh, and Die Hard is a Christmas movie. Peace.

And yet, if you look closely at that exchange of which I was a part of, there was no offense taken from any side. The other user expressed his disagreement with the term, I offered my explanation, and he offered his, with also a good dose of ribbing from others in between. There was no animosity at all there

In this, we agree

__________________

I also didn't mean to imply that I was criticizing Die Hard for being regressive as well, if I made that implication. I am a millenial as well, but I don't have feel Die Hard is regressive in a bad way at all, and it is entertaining. I just found it odd how John seemed to make too big a deal of the last name change, but I was just asking because I wanted to be enlightened on it, and didn't mean to give off if I was criticizing an old movie for being regressive. I don't feel Die Hard is that way.

First and second movie can be considered as Christmas action movies.

Die Hard IS in fact a XMAS movie! this question popped into my head after watching Love Hard

Ehhh, when I think back on Die Hard I never think of Christmas, not in the way I think of Home Alone, A Christmas Story, Nightmare Before CHristmas, etc.