Malygris on 5/8/2006 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
If I was to guess, I'd say he was inferring that discussing a film that hasn't even started shooting yet is perhaps a little premature. And pointless.
Nice try, but what I really meant is, what exactly about Die Hards 2 and 3 makes anyone think a fourth one is a good idea?
Paz on 5/8/2006 at 21:33
Quote Posted by BlackErtai
Plus, saying someone isn't talented and didn't produce good work because they were/are on drugs is retarded.
All he said was that the discovery of Charles' extra-curricular habit ended his career. Which it pretty much did. You've invented a whole new subtext.
"Crackhead" may not have been entirely precise terminology, but I don't know because I'm not really "down" with the "word" on the "street".
Phydeaux on 6/8/2006 at 00:47
Red Dwarf is one of my all time favorite shows.
Die Hard is one of my favorite movies. Alan Rickman is the best villain working today.
Die Hard 2 can suck my sack. If you watch the end credits closely, the credit for "Firearms Technical Advisor" is "Some Guy's Butthole". DH2 is an affront to anybody with even the slightest knowledge about guns. Or basic physics.
Die Hard 3 was OK. Not great, but OK. Jeremy Irons carried a lot of it.
Malygris on 6/8/2006 at 05:05
Are you seriously criticizing Die Hard 2 because it lacks realism?
Scots Taffer on 6/8/2006 at 07:02
YIPPEKAYAY MOTHERFUCKS.
Sgt_BFG on 6/8/2006 at 07:08
Well, yeah, Die Hard 2 lacked realism. but that didn't make it bad! I mean, most of the Arnold films aren't realistic, but people loved them, why? because they weren't realistic and were fun to watch.
Phydeaux on 6/8/2006 at 07:42
Quote Posted by Malygris
Are you seriously criticizing Die Hard 2 because it lacks realism?
Realisim as in a plausable storyline (not the issue--the first Die Hard wasn't exactly a likely thing to ever happen) or realism as in completely fucking up major plot devices?
/enter internet nerd mode
Plot device: The "Glock 7".
Quote:
That punk pulled a GLOCK 7 on me. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month.
Firstly, there's no Glock 7. Secondly, Glocks are made in Austria. Thirdly, there are no porcelain guns. 4th, everything shows up on X-ray, as X-ray machines detect density (skin shows up on X-rays FFS). Fifth, even if he meant metal detectors, a "porcelain" gun would still have metal parts (springs, bullets, etc).
Plot device: Blanks vs. Live Ammo
To fire a gun like an M16 or MP-5 with blanks you need what's called a "blank firing device" which is basically a plug on the barrel which creates enough back pressure for the gun's action to function and cycle. Otherwise you only get one shot then you have to cycle it manually. Also, IIRC, he shoots a handgun full of blanks at a bunch of airport authorities to scare them. Nevermind the danger of firing even blanks at a person that close (duh, explosions, lots of flame), a semi auto handgun won't cycle with blanks because there's not enough recoil or blowback (depending on type of gun) to cycle the slide back. Only a revolver will fire repeatedly with blanks.
See, I'm not concerned at all about the main plot of the movie. It's fiction. It's a diversion. I don't expect every film to be possible or probable in real life. I don't even really mind when (like in John Woo flicks) people never run out of bullets, because, given the style of the movie, I can turn that part of my brain off. But when a movie (such as DH2) hinges major plot points on technically impossible circumstances, the movie loses credibility and I lose interest.
henke on 6/8/2006 at 10:28
Quote Posted by Malygris
what exactly about Die Hards 2 and 3 makes anyone think a fourth one is a good idea?
It'll pull in big bucks for the studio. Necessity has nothing to do with it.
Scots Taffer on 6/8/2006 at 11:09
IT'S NOT CALLED DIE HARD: RESET WILL YOU ALL JUST FUCKING STOP
