Jump to content

Talk:Die Hard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Oily

"oily" in 2nd paragraph? means what?

I think it means a smooth-talking person who is not what he seems, a person who conceals his selfish intentions under a "slick" facade of respectablity or unctuous concern. (Like the term democratic centralism which sounds oh-so-respectful of workers' concerns but which is merely a justification for totalitarianism.) It might derive from "snake oil salesman", a kind of con artist from pre-20th-century America. --Ed Poor

FYI - one way to find out what words mean: Dictionary
Ellis also sports an slicked-back hairstyle that could be called "oily." I think it's a perfect description for the character, actually! --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 08:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a small change in the article

The article had claimed that the movie was true to the book. I deleted this because in the book it was the hero's daughter not wife who was held hostage & in the end she died. These seem like major changes to me. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation ?

Should'nt there be a disambiguation page for die hard (with lower-case? johan_h 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is taken care of by the first line of this article. Val42 00:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Parodies

Removed a reference between National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon and Die Hard With A Vengence that is entirely coincidental - Loaded Weapon (1993) was released 2 years before other film (1995) so it cannot be a deliberate reference to it. If someone wants to re-instate it as a ironic twist of fate that would seem a possiblility, but not one I think is needed. RoyBatty42 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you were correct to remove this. I have tried to cut down some of the trivia, per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style#Trivia. There are a couple of interesting facts in there that could be moved to a more appropriate section, such as 'production'. The JPStalk to me 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fires on Powell?

I don't think John McClane actually shot at Sergeant Powell's car. I think he threw the body on it, and then the terrorists in the building (who had been watching Powell check out the building) opened fire on him to try and prevent him from radioing for more help.

You're right, he just throws the body, he doesn't fire on him. Bonus Onus 03:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Really? I always thought he shot at the car...he is shown holding a machine gun shouting "Welcome to the party, pal!" --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 08:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If you look closely it's a different weapon firing, a machinegun, probably a SAW. Scott197827 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The weapon that fires on Powell looks like an M60E3, which is the same as used by the Helicopter Gunner later on, when the FBI shoot at McClane on the rooftop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rustone (talk • contribs)
In the original screenplay (which is pretty damned close to the final film, minus a line or two) it clearly states that it is a barrage of machine gun fire from Alexander on the third floor. Also, you can see clearly on the DVD that the gun fire is coming from a much lower floor than John Mac's.Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The real giveaway is this: we see McLane say "Welcome to the party pal" and he is clearly not shooting his gun. Meanwhile you can clearly hear that whoever was shooting at Powell hasn't stopped. So McLane is the one armed guy in the building that couldn't possibly be shooting up the police car.

Trivia point

I can't remember this 100% (and I don't have ready access to the flick), but I'm almost certain the football game the front desk guard is watching is a USC-Notre Dame game. Can anyone with the movie confirm? --Bobak 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that I had $50 bet on those assholes. --EEMeltonIV

I was just told that USHER RAYMONDS is the limousine driver in the first part of the movie. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bairuz (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeb Stuart redirects to J.E.B. Stuart. I'm fairly certain J.E.B. Stuart didn't write Die Hard while fighting in the Battle of Antietam. What can we do about this? There's a "see also" for Jeb Stuart Magruder, but I don't think that's the same guy. Amphy 04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the link to point to (nonexistent page) Jeb_Butler_(screenwriter) Rojomoke (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast "table"

While it is somewhat interesting to lay out the connection between the characters in the film, the "table" of the film's cast is hardly a valuable addition to the article. The "kidnapped" column is totally superfluous as only one person is marked and it could be argued that separating one hostage from the others is hardly "kidnapping." As far as mapping out who killed who (and how), it doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopedic. I think the whole thing should be scrapped, save for the basic info (character - actor). --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

lots of Spoilers

I don't know what are the current policy about spoilers, but this article has a lot of it. Shouldn't there be a warning somewhere in the beginning of the article? -- Daniel3ub (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nudity in Trailer?

I was a little shocked to see the nude pinup girl image that McClane passes a few times appear in Trailer A, which is on the second DVD of the 2 disc release. Did this actually play in theaters as we see on the DVD? And also, how were those scenes edited for TV? Did they let it slip there as well?

In a film which features headshots, gun fights, villains being thrown off buildings and copious amounts of swearing you are worried about a barely seen girly calendar on the wall? In answer to your question, yes, it did for some bizarre, unknown, completely unresearable reason slipped through the stringent TV censorship net and made it to the worlds TV screens. Mmm commentaries (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I wasn't "worried" (I'm of the opinion that Die Hard could have used more gratuitous nudity!), but it is a bit odd that the image of a naked woman was shown in a green band trailer and on TV uncensored. It's another example of content slipping through and now that you've confirmed it, should the article make mention of this? And has the Trailer A with the shot been featured on other DVD's that shouldn't contain nudity? (This also reminds me of Brad Pitt's pornography covered shirt in the trailers and TV spots for Fight Club, albeit with more visibility.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.60 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Goofs" Section

For an encyclopedic article, do we really need a "Goofs" section? If the content of the section is informative, could we at least refer to the section as something a bit more encyclopedic than "Goofs". I do tend to appreciate movie-articles that contain a "Scientific Inaccuracies", but much of the content presented in the aforementioned section is more readily observable by the casual viewer. Thoughts? Comments? —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. It's WP:NOR to use the movie as a sole source and claim that these things are goofs. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Die Hard 5?

I read an article about Fox was talking about maybe making a Die Hard 5. It is not for sure, but they are talking. Oh and Bruce Willis is in favor of another one. --Charmed and Dangerous, Danielle (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No I doubt Bruce Willis is willing to do a Die Hard 5. He is too old for that now. Can you give a link to the website that did the article? Kylee20051 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did McLain murder Ellis?

It isn't clear when Ellis is shot whether McLain intentionally tricks Hans into thinking McLain *does* care about Ellis ("Ellis, you have to tell them you don't know me or they'll kill you!") and then breathes a visible sigh of relief when Ellis is killed without revealing Holly's identity. Did McLain do everything he could to save Ellis, and was lucky to keep Holly's identity secret, or did he pause, think of the best words to say to get Ellis shot, and then have his plan work out in Ellis's death?

Please sign your edits for clarity in discussion. I'd suggest that the movie is simple enough to imply the first interpretation. Others, feel free to update the plot section if there's no strong argument against. 69.71.237.83 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's rather obviously implied actually, through indirect characterization of McClane as a compassionate man who doesn't want innocent lives lost like when he shoots the ground to shoo people off the roof or how he is visibly distressed and frightened (also for himself) when Takagi (spelling?) is killed. That "sigh of relief" isn't a sigh of relief, it's subtext along the lines of "oh no he's dead", but not sarcastic like I think I sort of made it sound. Of course he's pleased that he didn't reveal Holly's identity, he wouldn't have, Ellis obviously had a crush on Holly and would never have done her over like that. His pause was only a last ditch effort to help Ellis save his own life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.93.152 (talk • contribs)

Terrorists?

In the cast section several characters are marked with the job "terrorist". Isn't the point of the plot that the gunmen taking hostages are in reality just robbers and not terrorists as they portray themselves? The political demands are after all just part of a ploy to take attention away from the robbery.

60.240.143.88 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm curious whether that distinction will even exist in a few more years. QuantumG (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that in the credits, you won't wonder who they're talking about when they mention the Terrorists, since they're referred to as such many times in the film (even if their motives turn out to be different.) If you see "crazed man" in some credits, you wouldn't argue that technically he was probably just mentally ill -- it just helps you identify which actor they're talking about. 69.71.237.83 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

German language

As far as I know as a native speaker of German "Fenster" is "neutral" to quote the term, that was used in the main article. "Das Fenster", not "Die Fenster", exept you are referring to the plural of "Fenster" (windows), which is "Die Fenster". Actually I never listened that close, whether Rickman says "dem Fenster" or "den Fenster", however, both expressions make no sense and are ungrammatical, so what's the big deal. On the other hand not all German expressions in the movie are wrong.

There german speaking is ridiculous! The pronunciation is harder than the real german and the accent sound like a mix of native english speakers and germans from south-germany. Especially the 'r' is very english. You don't here any complete sentence, only cusses. They wanted to have the german stereotype. The hard and bad guy. I know it, because I am german. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.39.133 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"There german speaking is ridiculous!" YES! 84.62.133.101 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, his remark really is funny. but he still is right, you know. some sentences are acceptable, while others are just ridiculously wrong.the same is true for the actors' pronounciation. i'd suggest to add a short note to the article about the various mistakes in grammar, diction and pronunciation. btw: it baffles me every time over, that multi million dollar movie projects seem unable to hire a single native speaker to check the script and train the actors in the correct pronunciation (given the actors are not native speakers) - Yamok 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamok (talk • contribs)

Family Matters Spin-Off

I'd always heard that the show "Family Matters" is sort of a spin-off of this film as it features Al's character playing exactly the same character he did in the film, including his profession. Nothing is mentioned about this in the article (and perhaps it's the stuff of urban legends. Any thoughts? 206.24.49.1 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

one where did you hear that? and two that is no way anywhere near true at all--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

this Isn't Very encyclopedic

"Plus, the "German" spoken in the english version is complete and utter gibberish."--69.113.106.92 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that much gibberish - in fact, the German grammatical and syntactical deconstruction makes no sense at all.
Grueber does not say Schiess den Fenster, he says Schiess' dem Fenster - Fenster is a feminine accusative, not a "neutral", which I can only suppose is meant to translate the English grammatical term neuter.
Nuttyskin 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Both is wrong and doesn't make sense! Right is: "Schieß auf die Fenster!", or "Zerschieß die Fenster!". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.255.23.56 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Which is probably why Karl looks at him confused! :) (Which of course gives Hans an excuse to say it in English for the audience!)Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fenster is neuter. Go read a German dictionary. Or see: http://www.iee.et.tu-dresden.de/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/wernerr/search.sh?string=window&nocase=on&hits=50 HagermanBot is still right, because Fenster is both singular and plural. One would think movie studios would keep someone on staff just for throw away lines like this. 24.47.23.189 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are all wrong. 'Fenster' has a neuter article, as in "das Fenster". The phrase he says has 'Glass' as the direct object, and the articles change from "der, die, das, die" to "dem, der, dem, den". He is saying "Shoot the glass" which is correct as "Scheiss dem Fenster"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.96.162 (talk) 21:21, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. "the" as direct object translates to "den, die, das; die" and so it would at least be "das" (the window) or "die" (the windows) if any. However, "to shoot" with a direct object, meaning to destroy something, translates as "zerschießen". So "Zerschieß das/die Fenster". It is, however, quite more common to use the simple worde "schießen", which does not have a direct object, with a directional adverbial, and so a German would normally say "Schieß auf das/die Fenster". --84.154.83.151 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, you're making another joke with your misspelling "Scheiss dem Fenster". Though this article is incorrect to, it would be "das Scheiß-Fenster" (the f*etc. window). --84.154.83.151 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Godunov, Gleason and Atherton

Godunov is pretty much a no brainer. His name is on the poster (Veljohnson's isn't BTW). Atherton and Gleason have substantial screen time. Atherton is in it from virtually the beginning and the only time that Powell is seen without Robinson next to him is the five minutes until the body lands on his car. Both are major characters who drive the plot forward. {Quentin X (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Which actors are a "no brainer" is highly subjective, depending on the viewer. I don't really care enough about this to argue with another editor on a power trip so I will not revert right now. Just leave these bit players in with headliner Bruce Willis. HM211980 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
VelJohnson is the only one of the four in question who fits the "star" label. To say Atherton, Gleason, or Godunov "star" in this movie is laughable. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit as this argument has no basis in fact. If you would care to discuss the facts as placed above, I would be happy to answer. (Quentin X (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
While deciding which actors to call the "stars" of the movie is essentially subjective, I agree with HM and Crotchety Old Man on this. Andrea Parton (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree 100% that it is completely subjective. Perhaps the issue could be resolved with some third party sources saying that such-and-such actor "stars" in the movie. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
So, if we use the criteria of the above, how about we word it as something like "stars Willis and Rickman and features Bedelia, Godunov, Veljohnson, Atherton and (yes) Gleason", or just have Willis and Rickman and leave out the supporting players. Would this satisfy all parties? (Quentin X (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
As no one has come back on this I'm going to change it to just Willis and Rickman as they are the two main protagonists. Hopefully this will end the disagreement. (Quentin X (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC))
Reginald and Willis would be the two main protagonists and not Rickman.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans Gruber -- Our Man Flint link

Has anyone discussed the link to Our Man Flint that 1960s James Bond Spoof and the bad guy named Hans Gruber that was German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silik0nJesus (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian Terrorists In German Dub

I couldn't help but notice the mention of two of the terrorist characters being "made Italian" in the German dub of the movie. Even in the original English version definitely at least the character of Marco was intended as an Italian, if you turn on the subtitles when he speaks it reads "Speaking Italian" as opposed to "Speaking German". Did the German dub actually change other characters or was just this a mistake on the original editors part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.101.228 (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Girl in Window

Any particular plot point of this scene played by Michele Laybourn? Some have suggested that either something was cut from the film or it was designed to frustrate John McClane even more due to not being able to make phone calls after the lines were cut. Any other clues out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.237.59 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This has long confused me, too. Quite early on during the terrorist takeover McClane stops to ponder his predicament, and gazes out of a window; there's a brief shot of a lady in a neighbouring building, played by Michele Laybourn, who is credited as "Girl in Window", although she's unrecognisable and has no lines. The script linked in the article here includes it as scene 51-A, and suggests that it was originally going to be slightly ruder - perhaps along the lines of the contortionist scene in Blue Thunder - but as it stands it's an odd moment that comes and goes. It seems to be intended to highlight McClane's communication difficulties into contrast, but it's odd that they went to the trouble of crediting the actress involved. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading through this page and got intrigued by this too. That link to the script above doesn't seem to work any more, but this one does, but in case that doesn't work in the future I'll copy and paste the relevant scene: 

       A high-rise apartment building a half-block away sparkles with
       lights.  McClane stares at a PRETTY GIRL in her bedroom.  She's
       wearing drop dead underwear right out of the Victoria's Secret
       catalog.  As we watch, she flops down on her bed, and with
       one long leg in the air, effortlessly dials
       a call on her high-tech phone.  It seems so easy.

If you read that last bit it almost sounds like an advertisement: "...effortlessly dials a call on her high-tech phone. It seems so easy." Perhaps it was originally going to be product placement for something, but the deal didn't go through? A make of cordless phone or something? I suppose the purpose of the scene is to show that it's only the phones in McClane's building that don't work, that there's not some larger outage. To me the script seems to suggest it was originally going to be something more, but maybe that's just the way the guy writes. He could have just put "McClane stares at girl in nearby building who's using phone while lying on bed in her underwear", but there's more direction than that. Why is it a "high-tech" phone, for example? It seems very specific for what is such a short and simple scene. But maybe I'm reading too much into it. 84.9.165.232 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Side Bet

Does anyone know what the denomination of the bill is that Karl pays Theo in the beginning of the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.59.23 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems rather trivial to me...not sure how this info would improve the article? Doniago (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Or if you're actuaally asking this question (as curiosity) then perhaps you could try the films imdb page. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot section

After one false start, I had reduced the plot to remove the names of all of Gruber's men involved as it made the plot increasingly complex and avoided some of the broader plot concepts (like the fact that McClane attempts to mask his identity and how that leads to Holly's identity being discovered). That change has been reverted.

I can understand the aspect about Karl, and would reinsert that pointing that Karl seeks vengence for McClane killing his brother early in the film, but outside of Theo, that's the only real name needed for any of Gruber's men to make the plot make sense. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hiding his identity under an alias didn't matter, she was there under the name Gennaro, he only knew who she was because he noticed her looking at her kids on the TV report about McClane and recognized the kid on the screen and in all her photos. It's a minor plot point that doesn't go anywhere, it may be McClane's intention but it doesn't serve anything. I mean he knows his name 1h20m into the film, it doesn't change anything for 40 minutes until the news report. So hiding his identity or not didn't affect anything.
Using the gangs names means you don't have to keep saying things like "one of Gruber's men, two of Gruber's men, some of Gruber's men", or saying "Gruber's men are killed" which then raises the question why he has more men later, using many words where 1 will do. Like actor names, I don't count names towards a word count since they're a necessary element, that said the plot is now 674 words and covers the major plot elements. I really don't think the names harm it at all and maybe make up 20-25 words in the total plot if you do actually count them against the word count limit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not the size that was the problem. It is that by trying to capture the fate of every of the mooks that Gruber brings (outside of Karl, Tony, and Theo) spends too much time on specific scenes instead of capturing the larger essence of the film. That's what's cautioned against at WP:WAF. We don't need to say "McClane killed X, Y, and Z here" or even "McClane killed three men here", just that he started off outnumbers and systematically eliminates the numbers until the very end. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well reading your version I don't see what it adds that the current doesn't beyond the alias thing which I explained above. Further to that, this " McClane encounters Gruber, passing himself off as one of the escaped hostages, and reveals his real name to Gruber." seems like it is meant to be a revelation. But Gruber already knows his name because of Ellis by this point, knowing his name doesn't do anything and so the emphasis on him using an alias doesn't add anything. I put in a mention of Tony being Karl's brother. Unless I'm missing something the plots cover the exact same elements now except the current one offers more clarity on certain things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger or Sinatra

The page says: Nothing Lasts Forever, a sequel to Thorp's earlier novel The Detective, was written with the intention of being adapted into a film sequel to the film adaptation of The Detective, which starred Frank Sinatra. When Sinatra turned down the offer to star in the sequel, the story was altered to be a stand-alone film with no connections to The Detective.

However, the page about the book itself says: Nothing Lasts Forever was originally adapted as a sequel to the Arnold Schwarzenegger film Commando, but when Schwarzenegger turned down the role, the script was retooled in 1988 for the film Die Hard.

Easy to mix the two guys up, I know, but perhaps someone can confirm one way or the other. F2Andy (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below information was tagged for needing citations long-term. Please feel free to re-add this material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Weapons

A one darkwarriorblake keeps reverting my supposedly "good faith" edits. I think that it at least should be noted that the plot summary could use some work. Blake seems to think that his summary should be the only one allowed which I despise. If you think my edits are overdetailed, that's understandable. However, I wish to contribute to this page, so please stop reverting my edits.

Things to add:

  • He was armed only with his service pistol. Whether you want to add the brand or not, it's a major plot point.
  • McClane didn't "quietly observe" as Takagi got shot in the head. He panicked and gave himself away. The "quietly observed" makes McClane look insensitive and is overdetailed in itself.

Whether you agree if my edits are good enough for my page or not is irrelevant. This plot summary could use some work. I'll quit adding links to detail what weapons were used (although I think that the Beretta and the MP5 should be included) but I don't want you to revert my edits before you read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burmiester (talk • contribs)

Unless the name of the weapon is called out, the specific model/brand is rarely important, just the type and even then, that's rarely important (a counterexample, is knowing McClane strapped a pistol to his back as to hide it in the end scene, as opposed to a rifle or the like). Further, we have to be careful on plot size - film plots should not exceed 700 words, and we gloss over some details that aren't critical (like whether he panicked or not during Takagi's assassination) to the larger plot. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You lost any right to moan the second you called someone a nazi for telling you that linking to weapon and watch brands was unnecessary. You linked to Rolex. What the hell purpose does that serve? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's cool things down a bit here please... To link the weapons is original research unless we're going to source them...and even if we did it's my opinion that it's trivial as the specific make/model of weapon is not relevant to the plot. Generic terms work fine for a reader's understanding.
If we wanted to include them in the Production section because they're somehow significant that might be an option, but I'd very much like to see that significance demonstrated via third-party sourcing.
In the meantime, let's please leave the summary as it is pending a consensus here. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Music

Who is the band and what is the title of the music that played in the limo when Argyle and John were talking about Christmas music? (before they enter the Nakatomi Tower)

"Christmas in Hollis" by Run DMC -- Baby fenris 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the musical score, when Powell shoots Karl, is from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, when Kirk strikes back in the battle in Mutara Nebula (1982). (When I heard it in Die Hard, that scene in Star Trek, was the first thing that I thought of) Perhaps James Horner used that score as the basis for Aliens (1986) but it sure sounds like the Star Trek score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.121.223 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed per Snow. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Die Hard → Die Hard (film) – better 76.120.175.135 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yippee Kai Yay motherfucker

Where did they come up with that line? 70.90.174.173 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's due to the conversation he is having with Hans about American cowboy heroes and John saying he was partial to Roy Rogers. It's a cowboy expression.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a cowboy expression. It was made up for the movie. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The m-f- part was made up, but the "yippy ky aye" part does come from an old cowboy expression -- like in the song "Ghost Riders in the Sky". --Musdan77 (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly...... Yippee Kai yay= song lyrics. Yippee kai ya motherfucker= made up for the movie. Nothing I said changes. It was made up for the movie. It's not a "cowboy expression". Move along, nothing else to see. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Die Hard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bill Clay clue

Maybe he knows hands isn't bill clay because he sees him and Karl arguing about Karl's brother that McClaine has killed ("now I have a machine gun, Ho Ho Ho ") as McClaine is hiding , looking down at them in the lift shaft ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.137.21 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


From the Trivia section, this segment is in error:

"In the scene where McClane realizes that the man he has met on the roof, Bill Clay, is actually Hans, the actual reason he's able to tell is because he saw 'Bill' looking at his watch, which is the same special expensive watch as the terrorist McClane killed had, and he saw others wearing while he was standing above them in the elevator, but this information was dropped from the film. In the shown version, McClane glances at the workboard behind Hans and sees the name W. Clay, implying he's sussed out that the man is lying and is Hans."

The name McClane sees on the workboard is Wm. Clay, but Wm. is an abbreviation for William, commonly shortened to "Bill". When McClane sees the name, it only helps to confirm Gruber's story; the film implies that Gruber saw the same workboard and picked up the name from there. What may have been the clue that Gruber was lying was the way he held his cigarette. McClane held his cigarette in a V between two fingers, while Gruber held his between the thumb and his fingers. The latter is less common in the US, which could have been a clue to the observant McClane that "Bill Clay" was European, not American as he pretended.

Lee Gaiteri 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the intended clue (the watch) was cut from the film, anything else is likely to be supposition, but I've always read it as, McClane was suspicious but inclined to give "Clay" the benefit of the doubt - especially when he confirms the name on the board. However without absolute proof he isn't likely to hand *anyone* a real loaded gun and so keeps his options open. When Gruber thinks he has the drop on McClane, he gives himself away, but we then learn that the gun McClane gave him wasn't loaded.

Tomsalinsky 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Also, where did the idea that his watch was supposed to give it away come from? The watch we see in the elevator doesn't look especially expensive to me, and isn't he wearing it before he kills Karl's brother, anyway? I've always wanted to know how Hans knew there was an employee called Bill Clay! I've deleted the above post about the watch until something better can be added.Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Also when Maclane offered him a Cigarette, Gruber just took one without saying anything. They were the same cigarettes that Maclane stole from one of the other terrorists - European cigarettes. An American would have been slightly suprised or mentioned "gee these are different" but Gruber just took one without batting an eyelid.--Mutley 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[Jason] W pronounce is "B" by German. I supposed Hans did try to say "Will Clay" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.11.201.123 (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather a moot point given that the section in question no longer exists within the article. As you can see, this thread is over six years old. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Hans Gruber a German?

Re-watching the Original Die Hard in preparation for the fourth film, it occured to me the the original seems to imply the Hans, while posing as a German (who then poses as an American) may not actually be German. The key scene being after Hans is revealed to not to be William Clay to McClain and a fire-fight ensues as the henchmen rush in. Hans tries to give instructions in German ("Shoot the glass!"), but when Karl does not understand them, he needs to reitterate them in English. If truly German, he would speak the instructions more slowly and loudly in German; but rather he spoke in English. 66.109.248.114 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think viewers are missing the point about Karl's confused look. It isn't that Hans didn't enunciate the instructions correctly; the confusion is that the instructions seem odd to give in the middle of a fire-fight. The second command (given in english so the viewer would understand the command) was directed as more of an order from the "higher-ranking" thief, if there is such a rank-structure. Also, the third film confirms he is, in fact, german. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.96.162 (talk) 21:35, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Die Hard. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Die Hard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Released in summer

Why was this Christmas film released in July? Jim Michael (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

On the Plot Summary

The current summary, in addition to exceeding FILM's 700 words, has a severe problem focusing on every single henchman and their fate in the movie. Because of this, the plot, against WP:WAF, is documenting the film scene by scene rather than a more broader overview of the work. I tried to shorten it and add key themes (namely that Holly's choice to use her maiden name and Thornburg's reporting to reveal her connect to McClane, and Powell's fear of shooting guns and how it plays into the end) while very much skimming over when all the henchmen die, but this was reverted, claiming that we need to document all the henchmen. This is not an appropriate plot summary for a Wikipedia article; we aren't recapping (which is where each and every henchmen would be important) but summarizing, thus focusing on the principle characters. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you hadn't thought of some compromise like how Alexander Godunov's character Karl's name should have been on it as well as some others (like Theo, Tony and such) along with the plot summaries you wrote to it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Battleship, I'm not seeing an argument here for why it's okay to ignore WP:FILMPLOT. DonIago (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Doniago:It's because Karl (Alexander Godunov) was the main henchman of Hans Gruber, who had an important part because McClane killed Karl's brother & Karl was the henchman Powell killed and his name was removed from the plot summary, which wasn't necessary for one thing. Another thing, there could be ways to compromise plot summaries with important events and names of henchmen kept. I rather have the henchmen names kept to be honest, but with the Wikipedia rules on plot summary, we need to find a way to ensure the compromise some things in plot summaries when it comes to some important events and names of varioud henchmen in some films. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The first point is that both versions are over the word limit. However Masem's argument that the original version doesn't cover Thorburg's report is false, and the subplot about Powell and his gun is not important to the overall plot, it's a character subplot. The original version mentions the terrorists by name, but from what I recall that was to help explain scenes rather than just keep saying "McClane fights a terrorist", "McClane kills a bunch of terrorists", "McClane shoots a terrorist then fights Gruber". The new version doesn't even mention Karl by name and he's the secondary villain. It only refers to the villains as terrorists when they're thieves pretending to be terrorists, and focus on minutiae like using the fire hose, punching Thorburg, the alias Roy Rogers and setting up that Gruber doesn't know who McClane is. The original plot wasn't perfect because it's been expanded upon repeatedly over time, but a complete rewrite still over the plot limit isn't the answer, and the new plot sacrifices details to focus on other details. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. The complete rewrite of the plot summary isn't the answer. The new version makes no sense based on Masem's argument and all the new things he wrote on it are mainly subplots. I mean, does it count? It doesn't. Also, Karl was the secondary villain and Masem removed him name on the plot summary, which was unnecessary. The original version helps explains the plot summary better than the new version ever did. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that there are a lot of "mindless" action scenes in this film - good cinema, but crappy for exposition and here for plot summarizing. We don't need to summarize every encounter. Maybe there's something to be said about keeping Karl named, but all the other mercs are swap-out-able, and non-essential to the plot. There are more key details though that are part of the narrative: that Holly wisely tries to avoid giving away her identity to Gruber to protect herself and John (who's sticking with an alias over the open channel), and hence why they punch out Thornburg at the end for ruining that, for example (this is what I meant, there's no rhyme or reason for this punch at the end in the current version). It's also necessary to establish that John and Sgt. Powell develop this friendship during the situation despite what the rest of LAPD says, making the ending where Powell is able to fire his gun more important. Perhaps the fire hose scene might be a small detail, but this seems to be one of those scenes everyone remembers about the film, so it can't hurt if there's space to include it. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
As a point, User:Masem/DHPlot, is at 690 words (in FILMPLOT) , keeps the names of Karl and Theo (the only two named mercs that have any key relevancy to the plot) while keeping the core themes I identified. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

moms spaghetti

There is a grammatical error in the plot summary "Gruber, wounded, crashes through a window but momentarily saves himself by grabbing onto Holly's wrist, nearly dragging out out the window."

}} 212.121.214.237 (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Think you screwed up this request, but  Fixed in any case. DonIago (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Die Hard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture

It would be nice to have a picture on this page, like a movie poster. anyone know how to get one that isnt copyrighted? they have them for other movies. --Bonus Onus 03:32, Mar 15, 2005(UTC)

Die Hard 4

Did the 4th movie will have McClane's daughter in it? The last I heard it was going to be his son.

Should the term "metonym" be used?

The film turned Willis into an action star, and became a metonym for an action film in which a lone hero fights overwhelming odds.

I think the term metonym is not the best word to use here. Not only is it not the best word to use, but I think it may be used incorrectly. Maybe "became an archetype for an action film"? There is probably even a better word to use.

Ryzcheese (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Ryzcheese

I have a degree in English and I'm not familiar with the term, so I would instinctively argue against using it if there's a more commonly-known synonym. I tried to find a clear definition (though not very hard) and wasn't able to clearly conclude whether the term's being used correctly in this instance.
Delving deeper though, are there sources that have declared this to be the case? If so, maybe borrow some of their language instead? DonIago (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you should borrow some of the language. But we need to find some better term word for it. That's for sure. That movie was instrumental of setting an tone for various action movies about a lone hero fights overwhelming odds to avert threats like Under Siege, Speed, Sudden Death, The Rock, Air Force One, Con Air, Olympus Has Fallen and such. So we will need some better, more meaningful term for this matter. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
"very few films become so ensconced in the pop consciousness that their titles actually become descriptors of an entire genre (Groundhog Day is another)" The term used in the source is "descriptor". Still not the best word, but much better I think.Ryzcheese (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Ryzcheese
What kind of English degree turns you out into the world not knowing the word metonym?
Well, I have an English degree, too, and I do know the word metonym; and arguably it could be used of an actor who is so identified with one kind of film that he comes to typify a genre. That could be said of John Wayne and the Western genre; or James Cagney and the gangster film. But I don't think an actor appearing in four films in one genre, no matter how well received, constitutes metonymy of that genre. And I think lone-hero action film describes this particular genre perfectly well.
Nuttyskin (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean that to be a personal attack? Because that's somewhat how it came off. I would appreciate it if you struck that comment.
In any case, I don't believe "lone-hero action film" is a recognized genre (though I'd welcome a source for it). At least, AFI sticks with the well established "action thriller". DonIago (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cast

I see no reason that we need to list minor characters (for example, henchmen who do nothing but shoot and get shot) or tedious details about characters. The identification of the characters happens in the plot. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I've had this argument before - all the mooks save for Karl and Theo are not necessary to be listed in the cast, and if you don't like them in the cast their names are useless in the plot. --Masem (t) 01:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason to name them in the plot either. "Three of Fritz's men arrive and McClain is forced to flee," or something like that. Those guys are more or less interchangeable. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The movie's plot itself is written better as is then what Masem thought of. What Masem wrote didn't help improve anything important about it and therefore, removing the "minor" characters & descriptions was completely unnecessary for many reasons because the plot summary with those named henchmen helps flow the story of it and some of the characters deleted return in the later movies (McClane's children for example). This is not a way to improve things like this in this article and all you did TheOldJacobite is cramp a lot of this article by removing the necessary information on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Was any of that supposed to make sense? You have made no argument beyond "I don't like it," which, as you should know, is meaningless. The plot should be succinct and the cast section should list only characters who are important to the plot. On both counts, your preferred version is not better. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yours and Masem's is no better either. None of it helps the flow of the plot summary at all and make no sense telling everyone that "McClane kills the terrorists" early in the plot summary, which would deviate the flow of the plot of the movie. All the other stuff Masem previously added we're merely subplots which is totally unnecessary to the important plot points of that movie. That is why the "minor" things you removed doesn't help anything either because of the factors I told you about. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(Only for reference, we're talking about this plot diff). --Masem (t) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Battleship calm down. I disagree with the edit being made by OldJacobite. This is something I have either seen him doing across articles or been directly involved, where he performed the arbitrary cull, I reverted it, and he just reverted it back. It's a very brute force method of getting a change you want made, and I didn't really care to argue about it on Scarface. Bare lists are frowned upon on Wikipedia. You are removing names based on a personal preference, and removing information without a cause. Character descriptions do not cause issue on many featured articles. I am in complete opposition to the changes being made, and I would prefer if you stopped doing it across articles and forcibly changing it back when reverted.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No sound argument has been made in favor of keeping these names other than "personal preference," so it's a bit ridiculous for you to accuse me of that. I have no personal preference, but I can certainly tell which characters are minor, and most of the henchmen are minor. And, yes, so are McClain's children, who are of no importance to the plot. That they reappear in the later films is irrelevant. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Everybody in this discussion needs to calm down and reach a consensus. I am not accusing OldJacobite of anything, but I have personally had my edits immediately and forcibly removed for what seem to me to be petty reasons. "Minor characters" are generally considered to be characters with only one or two lines of dialogue, less then a few minutes of screen time and being listed low down on the priority list on the cast obviously this isn't a concrete definition but seems to be the common consensus. For example let's say, Anthony Peck as Young Cop #1 in this film is a minor character, he has about 2 lines and about a 1 minute of screen time. However, some of Han's "minor character" henchmen have some of the most memorable moments of the film, for example Uli stealing the snack bar, and of course have some lines and screen time. Using an example from another film, Captain Koons from Pulp Fiction is only on screen for 4 minutes, but is remembered as one of the best and memorable characters of the entire film.---Ducktech89 talk 9:47, 15 April 2018, (WAST)

I appreciate your rationality, Ducktech89. But, I have to ask what defines "best and memorable"? Clearly, we cannot go by what editors feel is important. All that matters is what the sources say. For the sake of brevity and clarity, we have to limit the plot and cast to those characters and events that are truly of importance. People can go edit a Wikia article or some other fan page if they want to talk about their favorite character. That is not what we are here for. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the agreement with both Darkwarriorblake and Ducktech89. You are reverting things that make film articles more encyclopedic. Some of those "minor characters" have more memorable moments than you think in some of those movies & character descriptions does not affect anything on film articles and you are forcibly and irrationally removing them based on your own personal beliefs, not in the best interests for film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Screentime and/or number of lines or even memorable scenes is not a great means of defining minor characters. Minor characters are ones that aren't critical to the narrative. This is proven out when you look at secondary coverage of this film. The hencemen get nearly next to no coverage at all. This is a strong sign we couldn't worry about covering them in our situation. --Masem (t) 16:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me introduce you to Avengers: Infinity War, where every minute cast member listing is present. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Far different situation, since every single minor character is a previous character prior to the film; plus recognized as a massive crossover event, I would expect to have the full list there. These are all novel characters here, so only those pertinent to this film should be covered. --Masem (t) 18:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not about that. It's about the flow of the story and what is essential to the encyclopedia of this film. Die Hard has some circumstances that are different than the majority of the other film articles and that is why it needs those contents. It helped revolutionized many action movies with the elements, all through the current years of our action films and there are reasons we have to make some plot elements on that article flow with it's got. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen another action film where there are a number of "expendables" that have bit roles be spelled out (for example Con-Air, Armageddon (film), The Dark Knight (film), etc.) There's nothing special about the henchmen in this film to warrant a difference like that. --Masem (t) 02:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
My inclination is to agree that listing all of the essentially interchangable henchmen is not ultimately an improvement, and that whether one, for instance, steals candy during the film isn't a significant distinguishing characteristic. It's certainly of no relevance to the plot. DonIago (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Look. The cast has been there for ages, it is not, in any way, creating an issue for this article. To omit a chunk of named characters FOR NO GIVEN REASON is not acceptable, and no reason has been given, nor can a reason be given to remove a bunch of cast that are causing no harm, especially when editors are pushing for the addition of crew as well. This list doesn't include "Cop #2", it's named people who are present in the film. People can have brief cameos in Marvel films and be listed. There's no reason to remove them here, and bare lists are frowned upon, so it is actively removing something not causing harm for something which is not preferred. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not IMDB or a credits database. We're trying to summarize a film to get to the production and reception aspects. That means, not every named character (and I'd argue being only named in the credits is not the same as being named in dialog) is going to be of importance to cover. Additionally, I've argued that to force the inclusion of interchangable names and keep the plot summary under 700 words, we have to forgo plot details that are actually rather important. --Masem (t) 17:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe in the edited plot. The previous plot was fine. We're not IMDb, and nothing on this article says it is trying to be. It's not filled with unnamed characters who appear in the background, stuntmen and extras, they're people with real screen time and impact, at least much as Takagi who is there for 3 minutes. To arbitrarily say that we include some criminals but we judge the others to not be that important is not policy, and there's nothing wrong with the amount of content there right now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, most of the henchmen in this film are interchangable; it doesn't matter what their names are as their persistence to the plot is non-existence (outside of Karl and Theo), they are bodies that either chase Mclain or Mclain kills. The names are not at all relevant to the plot. --Masem (t) 17:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You are failing to see the clear picture of this, Masem. There is no harm to all leave the named henchmen on this article like Darkwarriorblake said. There's a reason why it's fine where it is. This film is not like the other films with various henchmen that are unnamed and that the movie itself has characters who were named with lesser screentime than the majority of the named henchmen on that movie. Rewriting the plot of it and removing those characters isn't exactly the answer here. It takes away the more encyclopedic tone of that movie. It's best to leave it as is. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok to just end this, it's easy to find sources about the henchmen. These two are jsut off the front page of google 1 and 2. Therefore they are notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether a site that explicitly bills itself as discussing obscure characters is really the best choice to use for attempting to establish that a character is notable. DonIago (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Good point, Doniago. There really is no basis for claiming that these characters are important. As I see it, there are three editors in favor of their removal and two in favor of keeping them. How is this still an argument? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually there is three in favor of keeping them. Ducktech89 is the third in favor of keeping them. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Because no reason has been given for removing them? They're named characters in a film that you can find third party sources for outside of IMDb, and by Masem's named logic, since any Marvel character can be listed for being a character in another film, then the McClane kids canbe listed for being notable in future films. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not my logic at all. In the MCU films, all those minor characters have a clear establish past history that extends beyond the film, they are not introduced new to this film. In Die Hard, none of the mooks have any history or background development outside of potentially Karl. On the children, I'm not sure if that's needed to name them; noting they exist ends up being important in the fourth film, but that's it. --Masem (t) 16:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Secondary roles, in my experience, are grouped due to being less important than the primary roles. It does not have anything to do with past character histories; that is purely incidental. WP:FILMCAST says that "If there are many cast members worth identifying... names may be grouped in prose". It also says to find a rule of thumb for naming names: "billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc". The idea of "named roles" to me means a rough distinction between active roles and passive roles (e.g., "onlooking bystander"), though of course that should not prevent us from identifying famous people in unnamed roles where applicable. The henchmen being named is a reasonable indicator of noteworthiness. Considering that some of the actors here are blue-linked, it seems to be in the spirit of WP:LINK to have them to "bind the project together into an interconnected whole". I do not find including the details to be outright detrimental to Wikipedia to warrant complete exclusion. Not including them in the main list seems to sufficiently downplay their importance in relation to the rest of the cast. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record, and at the risk of contradicting myself, I'm okay with the cast listing in the format in which it currently appears (major characters on their own lines, minor characters bundled). I'd be more okay with some actual info about the process and all, but I realize that can be a tall order. My apologies if my earlier comment muddied the waters. DonIago (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've only seen the film twice, so I might be wrong, but were the minor henchmen even given names in the film proper (as opposed to the credits)? If not, naming them in the plot summary but not elsewhere might present WP:V issues. I've actually seen Bob Chipman's Really That Good more times than the film itself, and he points out that die-hard fans (forgive the pun) can generally name off these characters, but do we really need to? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we do. This movie's article is at much unique to the other film articles for a reason. The plot summary is written as is because it generally helps the flow of the plot itself better and Die Hard set a tone for action films (which still goes on today). All the henchmen were named either by the film & end credits and it wouldn't matter anyway. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
So ... your argumnent for including irrelevant details that are only important to fans is that you are yourself a fan and consider this to be a groundbreaking, exceptional and extremely important film? It might be (many people I have great respect for have described it that way), but that would seem to have almost nothing to do with the issue at hand and doesn't make any sense to those of us who don't necessarily share your opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Removing this information on that movie would affect the plot flow of the summary of the movie and eliminate the more encyclopedic tone to it. That's an issue on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The plot summary is not encyclopedic. If you are insisting we have to name each henchmen and the manner of how they interact with McClane, you're effectively forcing this to be a scene by scene summary, which per WP:WAF, we don't write it as such. We capture the larger film as a whole and avoid scene-by-scene. The problem of the cast list and the plot are tied together; if we have to fix the cast to remove the henchmen, then so does the plot. --Masem (t) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Not for this movie. The rewrite of this movie's plot summary isn't a correct answer for an article like that. There maybe issues with what it's got, but this movie is too far different from the other film articles because the movie is too unique is many levels and it set an tone for many action films that is still occurring in today's times. Can you understand what that means? What was rewritten with "McClane kills the terrorists early in the plot summary" and adding some material that are merely unnecessary subplots does not help with the movie's encyclopedic tone because of it's influence of today's action movies. That is a reason why it needs to leave it as is. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I can "understand" your argument, but I don't agree with it. It essentially comes down to this being a unique and important film justifying our inclusion of an excessive amount of fan-scrutinized detail in the plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about fan-scrutinized detail, it's about what makes this article flow better because of it's revolutionary nature and how it set an example of action films today. Removing such detail makes it all less encyclopedic and appealing to readers. Do you I'm not the only one who knows that? This information is there for a reason because of those factors and that serves it's propose. It's best to leave it as is. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're stretching into original research, or at least why the film is influential (eg the "Die Hard on an X" trope). It is not because there is a large number of henchmen and how the hero deals with them. It is the hero up against a number of insurmountable odds while fighting the villain's multilayered plan. The henchmen exist to help execute it and subsequently as targets for the hero, but they are not critical for the overarching theme of the film. --Masem (t) 23:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Refer to the articles on the films The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. "Minor characters" who have as much screen time and lines perhaps as of the henchmen in this film are also presented in this format. And unlike The Avengers, they aren't part of an extended universe. Even though they aren't henchmen or goons or anything, still who the hell remembers some of the characters in those films? Atleast the henchmen in this film have a personality. That's my take on it, it's really not worth getting into big arguments over this. ---Ducktech89 (talk), 8:16, 23 April 2018, (WAST)
Exactly. There are very good reasons why the henchmen on this movie should be kept there instead of removing them in this article. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
No one has said that we cannot add, as prose in the cast section, a statement like "X, Y, and Z played Hans' henchmen"; we just don't need their names since they have little impact as individual characters on the plot. --Masem (t) 16:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
DT89's comment above reeks of NOTFORUM discussion of how this movie is "better" than the Avengers films, and while it's nice to have someone acknowledge on-wiki that I don't just "pretend" to like those films as an excuse to fight over the Wikipedia articles, trying to "win" an argument by talking about how your movie is better than mine is not what I had in mind. The amount of "personality" the nameless mooks in this film (and BSM admitted further up that several of them do go nameless in the film proper) have is frankly irrelevant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so what kind of agreement are coming up with. I don't want to jump to conclusions but this conversation has gone on for over a month. For the record, I wouldn't really mind if the henchmen were listed as Masem suggested (i.e "X, Y, Z played Han's henchmen") but this conversation has gone on for far too long.----Ducktech89 (talk) 1:43, 15 May 2018, (UTC)

Guess not Ducktech89 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Die Hard. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


I'll snag this one. Big fan of the movie, and I am actually surprised it isn't GA already. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel most of these will generally be minor nitpicks that can either be implemented or not, it wouldn't truly affect the page much. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

  • Lead is concise, touches on just about every aspect of the article.

Plot

Cast

  • "Robert Davi and Grand L. Bush appear as FBI Special Agent Big Johnson and Agent Little Johnson, respectively" would making the first Agent "Agents and deleting the second Agent work better? "Robert Davi and Grand L. Bush appear as FBI Special Agents Big Johnson and Little Johnson, respectively"

Casting "The role was also offered to, and declined by" not sure if the declined by is truly needed. It would be inherently implied they wouldn't accept the offer. "McTiernan's then-girlfriend happened to be sat next to a representative of CinemaScore on a plane" -> "McTiernan's then-girlfriend happened to be sat next to a representative of CinemaScore during a flight".

Filming "In contrast to their on-screen relationship, Bedelia and Rickman spent most of their time between scenes together. Veljohnson similarly spent much of his free time with Rickman" perhaps these two sentences can be merged into something like "In contrast to their on-screen dynamics, Bedelia and Veljohnson spent most of their time between scenes with Rickman".

I really can't see any other issues with the page outside of these. Tackle these, and that should do it. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks RA. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
And that is a ✓ Pass. Great work. Rusted AutoParts 15:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Die_Hard/Archive_1&oldid=1136662334"