Is Die Hard (1988) overrated?

Tools    





"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



To answer the title of the thread, my answer would be no...it was # 1 on my list of My Action/Adventure Films. Love Die Hard with a Vengeance too.



I actually think that Die Hard with a Vengeance is the best, in the series, and tops the original even.



I think I like the theatrical but better, because in the unrated DVD, the extra violence that is put in, looks fake. When people get shot, you can tell that it's all superimposed CGI blood splatter, compared to using squibs, while shooting the movie.

It feels like the special effects were forced in after, to try to make an R rated cut, but as a result, the movie looks forcibly tweaked in post, and it shows. So what good is it having an R cut, when the R rated violence, put in later, all looks fake and unconvincing? I think for this reason the PG-13 version is considerably better perhaps.
The violence looks fake because it it fake. Then again I have seen too many dead bodies to ask for realism in movies. Though I will agree in principle that practical blood is better. Then again the CGI blood thing only seems to piss me off in horror movies.

I counter with the theatrical cut seemed cheaper since you have watered down a R rated franchise to PG-13 to get the teenagers in the seats based of producer mandate. Then you release the "real" cut to DVD that should have been the theatrical cut the whole time.



I don't know what that even means but I've always agreed with it. I don't even think it was originally intended to be a Die Hard movie.
I don't know if I agree with that. That's like saying that Casino Royale doesn't count as a true Bond movie, since Bond doesn't go after a global changing threat.



He's saying the script was written to be something else, which as far as I know is true; it was a standalone story that was repurposed to be a Die Hard film. Personally I don't really care about that, and it sounds like the screenwriters aren't dismissing it on that ground, anyway, but in a broader/more philosophical sense.



Just when my coil's reachin' the green line!
I actually remember reading that Die Hard with a Vengeance started as a Lethal Weapon script until they swapped Riggs and Murtaugh for McClane and Carver and moved the action to New York.
__________________
Look, Dr. Lesh, we don't care about the disturbances, the pounding and the flashing, the screaming, the music. We just want you to find our little girl.



Oh I heard before that Die Hard With A Vengeance was an original script called Simon Says, but retooled to be a Die Hard sequel. Perhaps it was considered to be retooled to a Lethal Weapon sequel first maybe?



Just when my coil's reachin' the green line!
Oh I heard before that Die Hard With A Vengeance was an original script called Simon Says, but retooled to be a Die Hard sequel. Perhaps it was considered to be retooled to a Lethal Weapon sequel first maybe?
That's exactly it now that you mention it, and there's actually a draft with Riggs's and Murtaugh's names in it.



The characters do feel kind of card board cut out. One thing in Die Hard, a lot of people say that Alan Rickman was such a great villain, and some have said that he's the best movie villain of all time. But the villain doesn't really go through much character development. He doesn't learn any lessons, go through any moral changes, or explore any themes or anything much.

He is incapabable of character change, yet he is considered to be a great villain, in a great movie, that doesn't have a lot of character development. I know it's an action movie, but even other great ones, still make more time for it.
the movie goes over night, what kind of character development do you want in like 12 hours of hostage situation, lol, man some people make me laugh with their judgment





Die Hard itself wasn't intended to be a Die Hard movie. It is adapted from the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp, a sequel to his novel The Detective which was adapted into a film of the same name in 1968 starring Frank Sinatra as flawed NYC cop Joe Leland (incidentally also the film project that essentially broke up the marriage of Mia Farrow and Sinatra when she chose to do Rosemary's Baby instead of co-starring with Frank in his film). Nothing Lasts Forever was originally envisioned as a movie starring Sinatra reprising the role, but he passed on the project. It bounced around for almost ten years before TV star Bruce Willis was attached, the references to The Detective all removed.

Plenty of details had to be changed from the novel, crucially making the protagonist much younger, changing the character of his daughter who worked at the company under siege into his estranged wife, and making the ultimate goal of the terrorists a theft, but the spine of the story is very much the same and many of the iconic set pieces were taken directly from the book.




And to answer the original question, no, Die Hard is not at all overrated.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



the movie goes over night, what kind of character development do you want in like 12 hours of hostage situation, lol, man some people make me laugh with their judgment
Well other movies managed to have more character development in a short amount of time though, like Cell 211, Runaway Train, First Blood, Hard Candy, etc, Phone Booth, etc.

So I thought it could be done.



I'm not sure if I agree with the premise. It's kind of interesting watching him go from totally in control and ordering people around to having to survive on his own by the end. And you learn that he's doing this out of pride as much as greed ("I am an exceptional thief").

Anyway, I don't think character development is an inherent good, or an automatic necessity. Certain types of films would be impossible if you effectively required all characters (villains, especially) to have significant character arcs. For any number of stories it would be a huge distraction from what the film's about, and trying to do. Rickman does get a bit to work with in Die Hard, but I'm not sure he needs it to make the movie great. It's not that kind of movie. It's totally fine if he's just a mostly unchanged bad guy, but he's plenty compelling and entertaining as he is.

Just because people praise something in films, it doesn't mean that's a check box every film needs to address to be the best version of itself. Sometimes it would take the focus off of more important elements.



Oh okay, yes you're right, it doesn't need that. I guess it's that Die Hard is often named the best action movie of all time by many, and even though I enjoyed it, I just don't get why it's rated so high compared to a lot of other action movies, since I feel it didn't go hugely beyond that point I felt. Or what is it about it that makes it go beyond what most people expect?



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Did the villain in Phone Booth have character development? Villain = bad guy. A good villain does not require growth or absolution. Just to be villainous and being good at it is enough.



Oh sorry I was talking about the main character's development, I thought we were counting that too, sorry. I guess for villain development, Cell 211, and Hard Candy come to mind.



I'm not sure if I agree with the premise. It's kind of interesting watching him go from totally in control and ordering people around to having to survive on his own by the end. And you learn that he's doing this out of pride as much as greed ("I am an exceptional thief").

Anyway, I don't think character development is an inherent good, or an automatic necessity. Certain types of films would be impossible if you effectively required all characters (villains, especially) to have significant character arcs. For any number of stories it would be a huge distraction from what the film's about, and trying to do. Rickman does get a bit to work with in Die Hard, but I'm not sure he needs it to make the movie great. It's not that kind of movie. It's totally fine if he's just a mostly unchanged bad guy, but he's plenty compelling and entertaining as he is.

Just because people praise something in films, it doesn't mean that's a check box every film needs to address to be the best version of itself. Sometimes it would take the focus off of more important elements.
agreed



I always think of Die Hard as a Christmas film. It takes place on Christmas Eve, and has Christmas music in the score, including Vaughn Monroe's wonderful version of "Let it Snow" in the final scenes. The odd part is that it was released in JULY of that year (1988)..

~Doc