They are coming for Die Hard


Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #210365

    I’ll let me speak for me.




    Exactly, why can’t they make their own action movie? It can still be inspired by Die Hard, nothing wrong with that, movies get inspired by other movies, books, ecc. all the time. But no, they have to be lazy and highjack other properties

    Dumb thing is, if they just concentrated on making a good compelling story, even one about a woman saving her wife, it’d probably actually make money

    PS: The story about your mom starting every christmas season with Die Hard is so sweet 😊


    They think if they can take over a successful franchise that their product/idiology will also be successful, since they know their idiology by itself is a failure.


    Can’t any Hollywood studio leave their old movies alone!!


    Short answer: NO.

    It is easier to repurpose/reimagine/remake something they already own than to make something original, create the next franchise, etc.


    Can’t any Hollywood studio leave their old movies alone!!


    I plugged Die Hard in last night before I went to bed, as my last settle in entertainment of the evening (yeah, I know).

    A 20th Century Fox Productions.

    Who owns…well…used to own 20th Century Fox before they murdered it in cold blood?

    That’s right…Disney.

    Disney owns the rights to Die Hard.

    Cower in fear, my friend. Cower in fear. If the fucking Mouse gets it in its deranged head to do this, it god damned will for the virtue points.


    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Roas.

    Look, Die Hard is fucking dead, Bruce Willis hasn’t made a good movie in decades (The Expendables doesn’t count), and by all reports he apparently doesn’t give a shit. If Disney wants to reboot Die Hard with Charlize, I’d be totally down for it, Atomic Blonde and Fury Road proved she’s a capable, believable action star…and while I didn’t care for Blonde being so on the nose with its use (more like overuse) of “Voices Carry” I preferred it to the monotony that was the headshot ballet of John Wick if were talking about best non-martial art action films of the last decade. Go ahead, do it…the last good one came out in 1995, just don’t half ass it.

    EDIT: Yeah, ok…Looper, and maybe Glass were “good”, but the dude has been in a lazy “I’ll do anything for a paycheck” Nic Cage mode for way too long and you can’t expect companies that pay money to acquire recognizable properties to just sit on something forever. If it sucks, so what? It’s not like the last two haven’t been turds. Same goes for Alien, at some point (AFTER THEY GIVE RIDLEY ONE LAST FILM TO FINISH DAVID’S STORY) reboot that shit, find a new anchor besides Sigourney Weaver because she’s mainly to blame for the series going to shit anyways not to mention it hasn’t had a GREAT installment since 1986.

    This is a totally different situation than Ghostbusters 2016 where everyone wanted and expected a sequel featuring the original cast without any huge missteps (GB2 was a small misstep) existing that would be used as reasons why it shouldn’t happen. It’s not like John McClane is that deep of a character anyway as those movies are way more dependent on their action than its chief competition back in the day…Lethal Weapon, which had way more fleshed out regular dude action heroes.


    ^  Other than implying Lethal Weapon is better than Die Hard, spot on.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!