[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Willis is clearly embarrassed by A Good Day to Die Hard, which begs the question why he ever agreed to it. He must've read the script before committing.

I suppose it's possible that he was strong armed into it by Fox, either he reprises his signature role or they replace him, which obviously he wouldn't want since McClane is his most recognisable role as well as an easy guaranteed pay day.

The blame for this film is squarely down to Fox, they should have treated the series better than giving the film to a director as poor as John Moore, with a better director and a screenwriter who actually understands what makes a Die Hard film a Did Hard film we would have got a much better film, but instead they go the cheap route and we end up with this mess of a film masquerading under the title of Die Hard.

[Nolan Deckard]

I'm not sure where Willis falls for the blame in this.

He is credited as Executive Producer so that instantly gives him a good deal of power over all production decisions, I have heard rumblings that Skip Woods is a friend of his also.

In all honesty it just seems like Willis wanted a quick payday and Fox were happy to obliege him in that regard, cobbling together a less than stellar crew and hoping for the best.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by dttuser

glad pretty much everyone agrees with my post on this.. however, I think Hollywood are really missing a trick.. and that trick is make the film as an 18-rated film, then cut the theatrical version (if you want).. but give the people what they really want in the 18 version and release it either at a later date at the cinema, or, on DVD/Blu-ray a few months later..

If they do this, they'll make more money and make people who love the originals a lot happier.. it won't take that much effort to have two versions of a film released.. it's been done in the past.. I wish someone was close enough to FOX to give the people in charge a kick up the arse..

That wouldn't have made the Story, Acting or Script any better.

This was just awful.....1/10.....the 1 is for Yuliya Snigir.

[fluffed]

Exec producer credit doesn't mean anything really, chances are it was given to Willis to keep his ego happy.

[Nolan Deckard]

It indicates that the franchise (and FOX) needs him more than he needs the franchise, which by looking at the amount of films he has been in since LFODH released, is true.

So it goes without saying that Willis would have an active involvement with the development of the film, it is either that or he really doesn't care about both John McClane and the Die Hard franchise.

Either way it seems really bad of him to actively allow this series to sink to this level.

[Theo_Bear]

Doubt Willis gives a toss about the Die Hard "franchise". . .God, how I hate that word. "Franchise" is exactly the reason why the series fell apart after Die Hard With a Vengeance. As soon as a series becomes a franchise, you can kiss goodbye to all respectability and goodwill which the series had prior. All Die Hard is to Willis is millions of $. Of course it's short sighted of him not to care about the quality of the product being put out, but from his perspective he's got far too much money in the bank to give a shit. That goes for most of the action films he's put out over the last few years.

[Nolan Deckard]

Maybe I used Franchise as the wrong term to describe the Die Hard films

To me 'series' rather than franchise is probably the better option.
In fairness by the time we reached DHWAV we had already hit the point where it had become a staple of action movies, such as Lethal Weapon. It had already began riffing on itself and became very self aware and self referencial.

But yeah, with the huge gap between the third and fourth film, egos had changed and it has defintely seemed to slide more towards Willis essentially fitting into the character of McClane just for the sake of it.

Such a shame that a series that started so incredible with an actor who embodied the main character with such life and energy has resulted in this.

[fluffed]

Die Hard really is a franchise though, in the McDonalds/ KFC way. 4.0 was just a script that was doing the rounds, and had the Die Hard label stuck on it.

[JCR]

Originally Posted by fluffed

Die Hard really is a franchise though, in the McDonalds/ KFC way. 4.0 was just a script that was doing the rounds, and had the Die Hard label stuck on it.

At one point Fox also apparently wanted to make a film called Die Hard 24/7 with Kiefer Sutherland's Jack Bauer character as well as McClane.

[Theo_Bear]

Originally Posted by fluffed

Die Hard really is a franchise though, in the McDonalds/ KFC way. 4.0 was just a script that was doing the rounds, and had the Die Hard label stuck on it.

Exactly.

[Nolan Deckard]

Originally Posted by fluffed

Die Hard really is a franchise though, in the McDonalds/ KFC way. 4.0 was just a script that was doing the rounds, and had the Die Hard label stuck on it.

That is essentially how number 3 was made. Yet it is considered the second best, so when is it considered a Franchise?

[Nolan Deckard]

And to add to that, A Good Day To Die Hard was the first of the DH films to have a screenplay and script specifically written for a DH film. Which seems the opposite of what you are saying.
But thank god it hasn't happened before, as much as I disliked LFODH, it could have been this disaster.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Nolan Deckard

And to add to that, A Good Day To Die Hard was the first of the DH films to have a screenplay and script specifically written for a DH film. Which seems the opposite of what you are saying.
But thank god it hasn't happened before, as much as I disliked LFODH, it could have been this disaster.

Technically LFODH was only "inspired" by a short article though, so it's arguable that LFODH was also a screenplay written specifically for Die Hard, unless of course the author of that article was someone who frequently jumped onto airborne harrier jump jets to escape the rubble of collapsing freeways

[Nolan Deckard]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

Technically LFODH was only "inspired" by a short article though, so it's arguable that LFODH was also a screenplay written specifically for Die Hard, unless of course the author of that article was someone who frequently jumped onto airborne harrier jump jets to escape the rubble of collapsing freeways

That would be amazing! But yeah I'm well aware of the cyber terrorism article that inspired a script that lead to LFODH.
But the backbone of that plot became the film and it was pretty unique, especially on the scale.
The plot of this one is your standard cookie cutter nuclear arms story, something generic that Skip Woods can take influence from and whack McClane in the middle of.
John Carlin and his original article is credited for LFODH. Skip Woods is the only credited writer on the new one.

[Straker]

Originally Posted by Nolan Deckard

I'm not sure where Willis falls for the blame in this.

He is credited as Executive Producer so that instantly gives him a good deal of power over all production decisions, I have heard rumblings that Skip Woods is a friend of his also.

In all honesty it just seems like Willis wanted a quick payday and Fox were happy to obliege him in that regard, cobbling together a less than stellar crew and hoping for the best.

According to what I read recently (in The I IIRC) the story idea for this was Willis’ so he’s even more culpable for the end result.

This is getting mauled. Haven’t seen one good review for it yet.

[KidMoe]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Willis is clearly embarrassed by A Good Day to Die Hard, which begs the question why he ever agreed to it. He must've read the script before committing.

For the money, I imagine.

[The Ambassador]

And I thought Taken 2 was bad.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Forgot about Moonrise Kingdom, but couldn't get in to Looper at all. Got about halfway through, thought "meh", turned it off to go to bed, and never went back to the rest.

Willis is clearly embarrassed by A Good Day to Die Hard, which begs the question why he ever agreed to it. He must've read the script before committing.

Looper is brilliant, you are wrong, and there is a massive change up half way through when Emily Blunt's character is introduced. Did you get that far?

Also, Bruce Willis may have signed up before reading the script, often with franchises/series they sign them up for prospective sequels before/whilst writing them. All the main cast for The Hunger Games have signed up for 3 more films, and they haven't even finished the script for them yet. (Though because they're based on books, the cast presumably have some idea where it's going to go...)

Why would they bother writing a script only to discover Bruce Willis won't do it? Better to get him first then do a script...

[Nolan Deckard]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Also, Bruce Willis may have signed up before reading the script, often with franchises/series they sign them up for prospective sequels before/whilst writing them. All the main cast for The Hunger Games have signed up for 3 more films, and they haven't even finished the script for them yet. (Though because they're based on books, the cast presumably have some idea where it's going to go...

Definitely not.

Someone like Jennifer Lawrence/Daniel Radcliffe will have to sign a 2 or 3 film series deal as part of a longer contract. This is to assure that the series continues every couple of years and hits the same demographic.

Bruce Willis is way beyond that as an actor and a hollywood commodity, he had no commitments to this Die Hard before being presented with the script and a nice fat cheque.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Nolan Deckard

Definitely not.

Someone like Jennifer Lawrence/Daniel Radcliffe will have to sign a 2 or 3 film series deal as part of a longer contract. This is to assure that the series continues every couple of years and hits the same demographic.

Bruce Willis is way beyond that as an actor and a hollywood commodity, he had no commitments to this Die Hard before being presented with the script and a nice fat cheque.

I wouldn't be so sure he wasn't signed up before a script was written..

[Tal'shiar]

Originally Posted by Dombo

Gutted, as said previously this once iconic franchise has been watered down a multiplex friendly epsiode of CSI or 24 in order to get bums on seats.

Gone are the days of coarse language & explicit violence we had become used to in the eighties are early nineties.

They are well and truly alive. I went to see the new Dredd film just before christmas, and that film is violence taken to the max. Lots of really brutal deaths, done in slow motion with no cut aways. You see a guys face blown apart in slow motion HD, it was pretty awesome.

Not to mention the latest Rambo film was pretty much 40 mins of lifeless acting, and the rest was a kill frenzy. Watching the 50.cal just rip people up was orgasmic.

Ultra violent films are still being made, but less so with known IPs.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Tal'shiar

They are well and truly alive. I went to see the new Dredd film just before christmas, and that film is violence taken to the max. Lots of really brutal deaths, done in slow motion with no cut aways. You see a guys face blown apart in slow motion HD, it was pretty awesome.

Not to mention the latest Rambo film was pretty much 40 mins of lifeless acting, and the rest was a kill frenzy. Watching the 50.cal just rip people up was orgasmic.

Ultra violent films are still being made, but less so with known IPs.

Dredd failed to cover it's production budget, so you can see why producers have been dissuaded from ultra "hard 18" level violence, especially when no big names are attached. Tarantino is probably the only person that will have any kind of success with a big budget ultra violent film

[Theo_Bear]

Dredd failed because it had no advertising, because very few people know of or care about the character, because it had no well known actors attached to it, was released only in 3D in cinemas, and because it was pretty much a stinky plotless turd of a film. I don't think it failed because it was an 18.

The Raid did Dredd far better, not to mention did it first, and TBH, I'm not sure how I managed to get to the end of that film either. Utterly generic load of choreographed Asian chop socky.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Utterly generic load of choreographed Asian chop socky.

Written and Directed by a Welshman...

Anyway not heard one good review of this yet, it really has no Die Hard feel whatsoever looking at it.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Dredd failed because it had no advertising, because very few people know of or care about the character, because it had no well known actors attached to it, was released only in 3D in cinemas, and because it was pretty much a stinky plotless turd of a film. I don't think it failed because it was an 18.

The Raid did Dredd far better, not to mention did it first, and TBH, I'm not sure how I managed to get to the end of that film either. Utterly generic load of choreographed Asian chop socky.

Dredd had shit loads of advertising, there were billboards and it constantly advertised on TV. In the UK at least, lack of advertising internationally may have been a factor

Carl Urban was in Star Trek and Lord of The Rings, he's hardly a nobody.

It has a 78% on Rottern Tomatoes and 59/100 on Metacritic (one more than The Hobbit), reviews/the film aren't to blame.

Released only in 3D was probably a factor in the UK, don't know about the situation internationally.