Talk:Die Hard with a Vengeance

Trivia Inappropriate Comment

"The World Trade Center is visible in several shots in this movie, it was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Why is this trivia? Many movies show the World Trade Center towers, and therefore it should not be a major deal that Die Hard with a Vengeance displays it. I don't believe this warrants being put as trivia as well as including information that alludes to the fact they were destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.26.245 (talk) 01:38, 2006 October 5 (UTC)

I for one think the trivia section needs searious trimming. Its about 2 pages of trivia, with only 4 or 5 actual trivia pieces in it. Someone needs to take the time to read, and delete most of the worthless trivia in there. DurotarLord 01:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandwich-board scene

Is it spelled out anywhere that McClane was in danger of being lynched? A knife is thrown at him while he is wearing the sandwich board, but I do not recall any discussion of lynching in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.134.30 (talk) 03:06, 2005 November 1 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to the Internet Movie Database, the Sandwich board that McClane is wearing in actuality says "I Hate Everybody" and was changed using CGI to read "I Hate Niggers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.78.99.218 (talk) 06:52, 2006 June 22 (UTC)

I agree with everything and yes the sandwich board change was done after the fact but the "I Hate Everybody" version is still used for TNT and TBS broadcasts while the other is used for premium cable channels like Encore and HBO. --Chad 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Flaws with Plot Flaws comments

One thing that was pointed out was that had McClane not reached to the bomb in the subway, Simon would not be able to carry out his plan due to all the emergency crew, police, and likely military precense. Due to the timing of McClane catching the bomb, the only real difference between what could have happened and what did happen was the body count. The bomb still went off, the train wrecked and the tunnel destroyed. People still could have been killed, and yet, with all the emergency crews and police, Simon gave them a reason to abandon the site. The plot scenario was fine and not flawed. The only difference was the death toll.

Another 'flaw' that was mentioned was that Smion had intended to have McClane killed in Harlem, yet he had various other traps laid about, supposedly for McClane to handle. Two problems with the calling this a flaw. One is thinking it was only for McClane and his plans centered around that. Without his enemy to solved the riddles, his plan would be useless. But it could be assumed that after offing McClane, Simon would just sucker someone else to do the chosen tasks. McClane only got the next task after surviving the previous one. Simon knew they were all deadly and figured one would get him sooner or later. Also, since the elephant bomb and the Yankee tickets were together, it could be assumed that it may have been a last minute ploy when McClane survived the subway encounter, which Simon planned to destroy in the first place. Even McClane mentioned it was a miracle he lived or even arrived in time, and only got the elephant assignment afterward. That assignment was solely meant to have McClane killed. All the other bombs had a purpose and McClane was not the only one that could have done it, considering how well laid out the plan was. The elephant bomb was the only one out of place. All the others would have happened just as they did in the movie without McClane. Except for the side projects to kill McClane, you'll notice Simon did not have to alter his plan. Remember, about killing McClane, Simon said,'Life has it's little bonuses.' Killing McClane was preffered, but not necessary.

Just wanted to add to this as I just removed these 2 supposed plot holes. You can look at a couple of ways. 1, the track record of the Gruber characters, and this is eluded to later in the film with McClane saying "I know the family." In the first film, Hans had the entire heist planned perfectly, with the FBI cutting the power, blowing the roof, etc. McClane was "The fly in the ointment."

In the third film, Simon, wanted revenge, but also wanted to compete with McClane. He probably figured that because McClane bested his brother, that he would most likely survive the Harlem stunt and in doing so, would not be able to interrupt the train (he didn't give them enough time even with McClane's improvising).

The whole idea was to get rid of the police, which he did. There were rescue crews and such there and the dump trucks would not look suspect because they would appear to be hauling rubble away from the site. I could probably go into it further if I wanted to waste time, but it's definitely not a plot hole.

Venom-smasher 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The factual error about the gold need to be removed. It is mentioned by John McClane that they did not take all the gold, therefore they would only take enough to fill the dump trucks.Agonsw 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing to the above mentioned, it is notable to add, that Simon obviously tried to minimize the casualties, killing only if it is really necessary. His men used stun weapons and the russian agent, who killed McClanes Buddy was (too late) ordered not to do so. The bomb in the elementary school turned out to be fake. Of course the whole gang would not hesitate to kill, but they prefer discipline and smart moves over firepower, like the two STASI snipers, who did not kill Zeus, because "Jürgen" was ordered to kill both, McClane and Zeus. Their motives are more based on tactical reasons than on humanity. So McClane seems to be the perfect candidate for Simons "killing jokes" because he is meant to be killed and not an innocent bystander. But as allready pointed out above: Almost any other man would have done the job as well.
A minor plothole can be seen in the theft of the numerous dump trucks. Stealing more than 50 trucks would take some companies out of business. Keeping in mind that the construction and hauling companies are somewhat related to organized crime, Simon might take some unwanted attention to his plot. Those "goodfellas" might show a lot more effectiveness in finding out, what is going on, than the police. So the safest way would be to steal the trucks one by one over months or opening up a construction company, maybe hire some employees, lease the dumptrucks from all over the country and steal them from the own construction site, which goes out of business right the same day. So instead of mentioning the theft of the dump trucks in the beginning, the cops might have mentioned the "unexpected statistic rise of carthefts" (in this case dump trucks). They might even have created a running gag, presuming that McClane was moved from homicide dep. to theft-investigation (cause of his alcohol problems) and his most recent case deals with some stolen dump trucks. McClane might have allready found out the growing number of thefts and could complain several times to be only attached to unimportant cases like stolen trucks until he gets the idea, what these trucks are used for (and bothers that he might have smelled the plot weeks before, if he had done his job more carefully). After escaping from the freighter vessel he could rapport to his CO that at least he solved the truck theft and requests to quit service for the rest of the day (to call his ex wife).--77.20.1.96 (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative ending factual accuracy

i think whoever wrote the alternative ending section was confused - they say the original ending is set in germany, wheras this doesnt seem to be correct, and indeed is not the case in the film I own. - Pm504 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gruber → Simon

I have changed all occurrences of “Gruber” to “Simon”, which is the name by which he is called throughout the movie, and is the name who Jeremy Irons is billed as having played. “Gruber” is not even the character’s name! “Peter Krieg was born Simon Peter Gruber”; i.e. Gruber is not his last name anymore. I would move the Simon Gruber article to Peter Krieg, but it’s already taken, and I don’t really have the energy to create a disambiguation page and move stuff. --193.11.177.69 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Just caught Die Hard with a Vengeance on TV tonight and noticed a rather blatant allusion to Dirty Harry - in the school with the bomb in it just before the kids are evacuated the teachers are leading them through a group sing-along of 'row row row your boat', just like Scorpio made the kids do on the bus in Dirty Harry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.4.130 (talk) 05:54, 2007 June 20 (UTC)

Dubious trivia in the ending section

The fact about the man carrying a 4 gallon jug being beaten to solve the riddle is clearly false. it's in the wrong section and just doesn't make sense. I've read alot of trivia and listened to alot of interviews about this film and never once have I heard that factiod. Fenton Bailey 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Ending Flaw

I guess I'm really glad they didn't go with the overblown alternate ending after all. The comment that really stands out is that after all of these years, the FBI took away his Pension.

That is illegal. Qualified pension plans are governed by the Internal Revenue Service. Pensions are also referred to as a "defined benefit" plan, meaning that the contributions are based on a defined rate of company contribution typically, contrary to 401ks, where it is based on what the employee puts in.

It is illegal to take away a portion or all of somebody's pension for arbitrary reasons. The FBI would have had to terminate the Pension for everybody in the company by amending the governing plan document, and even then, the benefits promised and accrued before the Pension plan termination would still have to be paid out to all plan participants.

So if something like that happened, McClane could simply call the Department of Labor and he'd have his Pension back. --72.188.153.103 14:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)SlayerRob

Learn something new every day -- thanks. --EEMeltonIV 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction to One of the Production Notes

Just want to make a correction on the McClane/Sandwich Board production note. That scene was not, at all, filmed in Harlem. In fact, that scene was filmed in Washington Heights (right outside my building), and Willis' board was blank. "I Hate Niggers" was actually added on in post-production. Patriot174 01:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The board may have been blank...but I have just watched that scene, and Samuel L Jackson and one of the 'harlem mob' refer to John Mclane as hating Niggers. I am a bit of a technophobe, so not sure how they would have edited that in, especially as both times you see the words leaving the actors mouth. And I have no idea how to sign this, sorry.Turdalina (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The key word in your statement is "actors". This may shock you, but Jackson and the others were given a script that told them what to say and how to act around John McClane(who is in actuality just an actor named Bruce Willis). "Die Hard With a Vengeance" is not a documentary. So the fact that Jackson and the black youths act as though the sign said "I hate niggers" doesn't mean that it actually did.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah but it has said "I hate everybody" on most stations that air it as a TV edit, and would be found on the dvd copy of the movie saying that. =^-^= --I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Frozone=zuez

In a trivia section i think we should add the refrence to The incredibles. The bit where frozone is at gunpoint trying to get a drink in the jewlry store is the exact same premisis as when zuez carver is trying to awnser the phone in the subway.May i add that frozones voice actor, Samual L Jackson, is zuez carver in the film —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Cuthberton (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Alternate title"

Whoever is replacing the the title with, or inserting, that the film is called "Die Hard 3: With a Vengeance," or "Die Hard: With a Vengeance," please stop. Both these titles are incorrect. The film never had a 3 in the title, ever, and the only place where an ellipse is inserted in the title is in the commercial for the DVDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.199.160 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Phil Thesis aka Damian Demento had a small role

Phil Thesis aka Damian Demento had a small role in a green pick up truck in this movie, according to his youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhcwDOTcWs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.241.20 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, IMDB says it too http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0857363/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.241.20 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

4 Gallons Riddle

How is the 4 out of 3 and 5 gallons-riddle solved? i watched it threee times, i just dont get it!! it would be nice, if it can be mentioned in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoft (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but here goes:

• • Fill the three-gallon jug to the top and pour it into the five-gallon jug.
  • Re-fill the three-gallon jug and use it to fill the remainder of the five-gallon jug. You now have one gallon of water left in the three-gallon jug.
  • Empty the five-gallon jug completely. Pour the one gallon from the smaller jug into the larger one. Now, you just have to refill the three-gallon jug and pour it into the five-gallon jug. 3+1 = 4, so four gallons. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Another way to do it is this-

• • Fill the five gallon tank fully and empty 3 gallons into the 3 gallon tank
  • pour out the three gallons in the three gallon tank, and put the two gallons in the three gallon tank
  • fill the five gallon tank fully, and empty one gallon into the three gallon tank
  • This leaves 4 gallons in the five gallon tank

You can do this either way, but i think the top one is faster. I'm not sure which they use in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 16:16, 2008 November 2 (UTC)

Plot length

The plot on this article is presently too long for a typical movie article. I have attempted to shorten it but am being reverted. As per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, as well WP:MOSFILM, the current plot is too long and goes into too much detail for an encyclopedic article. The plot needs to be shortened. --MASEM 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigma Epsilon Chi's version (now): 1088 words, Masem's version: 860 words. I still see ample opportunity in Masem's version to trim the plot summary down to 600-700 words. Since less is more on wikipedia when it comes to plot (wikipedia isn't trying to replace watching the film), I prefer Masem's version and work from there just based on word count. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, 400-700 words... That's tough. Even at over 1,000 words, the plot summary was missing some important points before I edited it. I think one obvious place we can cut is that we don't need elaborate descriptions of all of Simon's "games", since they were only distractions from his real plan. I'd say we could use less detail on the school bomb, and no detail at all on the trash can and subway bombs. I'll see if I can edit that out in the next couple days.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I cut out everything I said I would, plus a whole lot more, but the plot summary still sits at a little over 800 words. So I give up for now; someone else see if you can do anything with it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Went back to it and cut a few more unnecessary phrases out... still at just a little less than 800 words.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Under 600 now, hope that helps, see how you like it. Kaleeyed (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The plot is outlined in less than 600 words (as stated above), the guidance length is 400 to 700 words. I cannot understand, how a change of about 35 words would expand a section of < 600 words to > 700 words. So I also cannot understand why the only possible means to overcome the extraordinary enlargement of 35 words is the total revert, without taking in account, that the reverted edit contained some subtle but important changes. 600 words (or 635) are less than 700, so the lenght criteria (400 < n < 700) is fullfilled. There exists only 'fullfilled' or 'not fullfilled' but no 'fullfilled GOLD', so where is the reason to limit the length by emergency measures. There are still some details, which can and should be clearified with only one or two more words:

• McClane takes the subway while Zeus continues to drive the car, Zeus does NOT drive the subway
• Simon is NOW a mercenary NOT during his military career. Former officers of the east german army do not become automatically mercenary.
• The term 'school bomb distraction' does not exist, the term 'using the school bomb AS distraction' counts only ONE or TWO words more and improves the language style.
• McClane cannot 'recognize' (remembering from a former encounter or from old knowledge) Simons plan but only 'realize' (coming to a conclusion by inspiration) it. In german and french both terms can be translated into the same words, maybe other languages too.
• Mentioning the REAL BOMB does not make sense, if the FAKE one (especially the fact that it is fake!) is not mentioned.
• The so called 'tanker vessel' is a freighter (I have never seen tanker vessels with huge loading ramps, without manifold but stacked containers on deck), it is in fact the 'Forest Swan', a RoRo Vessel.
• McClane and Zeus are not trapped on the vessel but simply caught due to bad luck.
• McClane and Zeus manage to free themselves AND jump overboard before the bomb explodes. Otherwise they would have been killed by the explosion or drowned when the vessel sunk.
• McClane cannot report the absence of the gold on the vessel, because he does not KNOW it, he simply SUSPECTS it.

There are also some words, which can be omitted. To put it on a nutshell: I simply will NOT waste my time to improve the quality (and not so much the quantity) of an article as long as someone else simply reverts everything. BTW there is still some room for improvement simply by changing some expressions into a more 'variable' language. The english language contains a lot more verbs than 'to make', 'to give', 'to say' or 'to do'.--77.20.1.96 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You realize you just replied to a thread that's over five years old? In any case, if you're not going to improve the plot you can't really expect anyone else to, but as long as you keep it under 700 words and don't commit any grievous errors (poor grammar, etc.) along the way, I'm not sure why anyone would revert you. DonIago (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Should have a reception section

I think This article should have some kind of section on it's reception, especially since this fil was not so well recieved as the others, and it's the only article of the fur without one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I should add production cost, taken from http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Die-Hard and not sure wether the-numbers.com website is reliable, but I wanted to know what the production cost was and found production budget to be 90mio.$$:

Release Date	Title	Production-Budget	DomesticOpeningWeekend	DomesticBoxOffice	WorldwideBoxOffice
May 19, 1995	Die Hard: With a Vengeance	$90,000,000	$22,162,245	$100,012,499	$364,480,746

--d-axel (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Script origin

Does anyone know a reliable online source for the story of the origin of this movie? According to the DVD commentary it was originally supposed to become a standalone movie called "Simon Says", then the script was in the race to become Lethal Weapon IV. The script was then acquired for the Die Hard franchise when the original idea for Die Hard 3 (aboard a ship) was made obsolete by the release of Under Siege. The first hour of the movie is said to be quite close to the original Simon Says script. The details are also listed in bits and pieces in the IMDB entry, but since their verification process is relatively superficial it's not really a reliable source. --MikeZ (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you need an online source?--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Simon's henchmen

Anybody know the names of Simon's henchmen in this movie? Anyone who knows who they are will be appresciate. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Check IMDB. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not good enough. It doesn't tell you which ones they are. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Only one is really named in the movie. It's pretty unlikely that any of the other characters are significant enough to included in the cast section of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually there are three or four names of those henchman that are mentioned in the movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• You know what.....I have a better question: How will adding the names of very minor characters to the article improve it? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• You know what? It doesn't change anything. You and I agreed on that. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Then if it isn't going to improve the article, why are we discussing it here? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since part of the storyline is that Simon worked as an infiltrator of some kind using specially trained Germans and others who spoke perfect English, the names of his henchmen are likely to have been fake anyway. Only Targo and 'Otto' (the one who steals McClane's mate's badge) actually get a name check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Morden76 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, one of the guys name Karl was one of guys disguised as a security guard and the name Nils is one of the two Simon's men that McClane killed in the New York City Tunnel Number 3 where the aqueduct is at. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Simons Henchmen come from all eastern block countries, the greatest part of them seem to be east german, though the infiltration unit was deployed in east germany. Otto speaks clearly russian (he was overdubbed to an east german dialect in the german version), so 'Otto' might be a nickname and Targo speaks hungarian onboard of the ship with another gangmember (though I cannot tell if the meaning of the phrase, Taro uses might be "Can you direct me to the railway station?" or "Please fondle my butthocks."). Karl and his partner speak something, which might be intended to be german but in fact is a mixture between afrikaans and "tomanish" from The Great Dictator (when Zeus handed them over the Elefant bomb). Later when Zeus picks up the last riddle one of the german sniper team (the spotter) is called 'Jürgen'. 'Jürgen' seems to be less than a colonel (calling Simon "Herr Oberst"), which is hard to believe considdering his age, maybe he has served as NCO and reached sergeant major (Stabsfeldwebel). Names like 'Karl', 'Hans' and 'Otto' were popular during the 1920s but were unfashioned during the 1950s and 1960s when most of the east germans, portrayed in this movie must have been born. Name fashion shew a few differences in east and west germany. In 1990 those men in their thirties and fourties would name 'Jens', 'Michael' (or the russian form 'Misha'), 'Christian', 'Klaus', 'Jörg' or even 'Falko'. This is just for the curiosity of BattleshipMan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.1.96 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Binary Liquid explosive

I have an issue the plot summary here. The film makes no reference at all to the material being 'bio chemical', just a binary liquid and I did provide a link to a (admittedly very short) Wiki article that had its own external links. I just thought it was a fairly minor edit/correction that only added about 10 words, and didn't really see why it needed to be removed. The same could be said for my edit of the bit where Mclane realises whats actual happening from the comments made by the youth. He didn't 'overhear' a conversation (as was stated in the pre edited article), he directly engaged with the youth after catching him stealing --Mr Morden76 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Morden76 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the second point but to the explosive part, we have a word limit when writing plots and the only important part about it is that it is explosive, it doesn't matter if it needs to mix, its no different than a timer and from what I recall, you don't need to know it mixes to understand the plot, just that it will explode. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I told Morden the same thing previously. As for the second part, we could just as easily say, "Mclane realizes..." and leave it at that. Exactly how he realizes it isn't essential to the plot. Doniago (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting piece of trivia that won't find itself into the article.

Real image that was used to create the Simon Gruber image used in Die Hard with a Vengeance.

The picture of "Simon Gruber" as an East German officer that is seen in the FBI folder used in the movie (see here: image) is actually a photshop of a real image. You can see they used the three East German guards in the top center. Jeremy Irons face was merged onto the one on the left in the center group. The source is an actual photograph showing the recovery of the body of Günter Litfin who was shot trying to cross the Berlin Wall in 1961.

I know it's Original Research but I thought it worth sharing.31.51.45.206 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump

Trump theme is worth to note.

First, the Bonwit Teller building actually was destroyed by Donald Trump in 1980.

Second, Trump mentioned directly in the film: Wanda: "And I'm going to marry Donald Trump!"

90.154.67.52 (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)alex

Have any reliable sources made significant comparisons? A one off joke doesn't seem especially notable in and of itself. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Aforementioned Nell Minow's review (on beliefnet) isn't reliable?

How about The A.V. Club review ? http://www.avclub.com/article/die-hard-humanized-and-perfected-action-movie-245062

Tevi Troy ? https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4627492/tevi-troy-reminds-us-theres-trump-clinton-mentions-die-hard-3 https://twitter.com/tevitroy/status/683034020083535872

90.154.67.52 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)alex

• It's unencyclopedic trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Parks

Bit role says five lines of dialogue. I'm guessing he has about 8-12 as he has several different scenes of banter with McClane. As for: "Richard Council as Otto, Mischa Hausserman as Mischa, Phil Theis as Erik, Robert Sedgwick as Rolf, Sven Torvaid as Karl, Timothy Adams as Gunther, Tony Halme as Roman, Greg Skrovic as Kurt, Bill Christ as Ivan, Gerrit Vooren as Nils and Willis Sparks as Klaus." Who of them has even five lines? The most memorable henchman, Otto, doesn't even speak English. 93.136.174.224 (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Plot expansion

Courtesy pinging Tvx1 (talk · contribs). Editors are invited to offer their opinions as to whether this expansion to the plot summary, which takes it well over the 700 word maximum advised by WP:FILMPLOT, constitutes an improvement to the article. Thank you for your feedback. DonIago (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You are grosely exaggerating here. It’s not well over the 700 maximum at all. Just a little. Moreover, you are referring to guideline which as you admit yourself, merely advises us. The 700 word limit is not a strict rule. My changes improve the plot considerably because they connect some confusing holes left prior to my changes and they correct some incorrect content regarding the part taking place in and around the ship. We should use common sense and aim to provide our readers with correct and non-confusing information, instead of mindelessly applying a guideline as a law.Tvx1 03:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We'll see whether other editors feel your increase to the word count has merit. But it's not "just a little" either; with your edits the word count is up to 782 words, 10% higher than the recommended maximum. Also, per WP:BRD, when your expansion was reverted, you should have initiated a discussion; instead you've continued to restore your expansion. As an act of good faith I would ask you to revert your edit until there's a consensus supporting ignoring the guideline in this instance. DonIago (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have any merit, and it isn't "a little" over. It's 82 words over the limit, and there's nothing particular to this film that needs any more explaining than any other film. It isn't overly complicated nor overly long, with a runtime of 2hs 8min. —El Millo (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the WP:STATUSQUO, and I'll add that, even though it is a guideline, it is in place for a reason and it isn't merely an advice, it should be followed unless there's a clear reason not to follow it. —El Millo (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking closely at the changes, most if not all of them are details not necessary to understand the plot summary, so even if they weren't over the limit they shouldn't be kept. —El Millo (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Correcting clear errors isn't any merit?Tvx1 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think at times like this, some plot summaries should be over 700 only by at least 100, if not more. Sure we can't have unnecessary details, but some of them can be very confusing to understand by readers. From my point of view, some plot summaries that within 400 to 700 words tend to somewhat problematic with some lack of correct detail and such. Even if we try not to have unnecessary detail, we need some improvement in pointing out better detail and maybe by doing by slightly increasing word count to 500 to 800. That's far is what we should go. I know it's a personal opinion of me, I'm just feel there are some merits to pass the plot summary after 700 words. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The unnecessary details can actually make plot summaries more convoluted and confusing, and if not, they distract from what's actually important in the plot summary. —El Millo (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is not the case here. They aren't unnecessary details. They actually fill some gaps where the current text leaves confusing jumps in the storyline. Also part of my changes are meant to correct patent false information. Why that part is being repeatedly reverted to obsessively implement some words of advice as a strict law, is something that I just cannot understand. I open to discuss trimming my changes down somewhat, but some of them are clear improvements and were reverted without a good reason.Tvx1 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason is that they go over the limit. Whatever changes you need to implement should be within that limit, which has wide community consensus as all guidelines do. The water pouring puzzle is a detail not necessary to understand the plot as a whole, as is that McClane notices two kids being chased for shoplifting. When he stops and confront them, a remark by one of the kids makes McLane realize what Simon is doing. Look at this:

• The current version says: They sneak aboard a tanker vessel docked in Long Island Sound
• Your proposed version expands this to: They track the trucks to a roll-on/rol-off vessel that just left port in Long Island Sound. They hastily climb onboard after attaching their car's winch cable to the ship's crane, killing one of the henchman in the process. This is all unnecessary details.

The first two changes seem reasonable, adding When Carver confronts him and though successfully preventing any casualties, but that "successfully" can be removed. —El Millo (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to watch the movie again but I'm not aware of them clearly stating that no causalities happened during the subway crash. It certainly goes to make it appear everyone was safe, but that's not the same thing without engaging OR. But that's a minor aspect to the larger debate. --Masem (t) 19:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

At last someone who sees some reasonability in my changes. I agree with the removal of the word "successfully". As for Masem's query. When McLane is being debriefed in the police van near the subway system, his superiors tell him none died in the explosion. With regards to the ship the ship boarding scenes, it's really a shame that you are only able to focus on the word count when reviewing that change and as a result fail to notice what my change really intended to do. Correct false information. The vessel is NOT a tanker. It is a roll-on/rol-off carrier on which the criminals literally roll on containers (allegedly filled with the stolen gold, but in reality filled with scrap metal). Secondly the ship wasn't moored and they didn't sneak on board. It was sailing and they jumped (somewhat) onto it from a bridge and are noticed by a henchman in the process (who is instantly dispatched). My proposed change can certainly be trimmed down, but the information needs to be correct. I would think something along the lines of They track the trucks to a roll-on/rol-off vessel leaving Long Island Sound, which they hastily jump onto. I really believe that blindly retaining false information only to meet what's really an advised limit. Lastly, I do agree that the part with the kids could be omitted, but a quick mention of the water jug riddle task and them being sent to Yankee stadium is imho justified. The former because it's one of the most iconic scenes of the film and the latter because the dead end intended ambush is what causes Carver to backtrack and reunite with McLane to begin with.Tvx1 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In terms of summarizing plot, we aren't supposed to make any deep interpretation of what a film shows, only write to what is clear. The exact nature of the ship they board does require that type of interpretation we don't want editors to do.. all that matters is that it was a ship that can hold freight containers. If the film went out of its way the be clear the type of ship was important, we then call it out. Eg this is why we don't call out car brands or types in film unless that is essential info (James bond and Aston Martin, for example). --Masem (t) 21:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The addition is clearly unnecessary. We do not need to summarize scene-by-scene, which I read the expansion trying to do. I agree we want to guide the reader to understand why characters do something - and in this case, for example, how McClane realized the school threat was a decoy - but we don't to spell out all the steps they come to make that decision. --Masem (t) 19:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• The additions were unnecessary. The section as it stands contains too many precise details that are of trivial importance to the plot/story and/or there is no indication as to their relevance to the plot (e.g. "Brooklyn-bound 3 train" and "derailing the train and damaging the station") and could be substantially trimmed in order to better meet its purpose. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's a shame that quite a number of people only care about word count and are clearly unwilling to properly analyze proposed changes. If you had done so you, you would have noticed that I also correct some patently false information.Tvx1 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: what's the patently false information you correct? I don't see any correction, only additions of detail. —El Millo (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Because you're not putting in the effort to see it. I corrected the incorrect ship type as well as the incorrect claim that McClane and Carver sneaked on board a moored vessel, when in reality they jump on a moving one.Tvx1 19:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  They still sneak aboard it, no matter exactly how they do it, because apart from the guy they immediately kill, no one sees them when they board. So the two corrections you make are the type of ship and the fact that it was moving instead of docked. The type of ship can be omitted, calling it simply "ship". But the way they do it is all unnecessary. We can simply change They sneak aboard a tanker vessel docked to They sneak aboard a moving ship. —El Millo (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  That sentence just sounds weird. Moreover the word tanker isn't only used there. And grappling a winch cable from a bridge onto the crane a moving ship, with the car the winch is from crashing onto the ship is not what a call sneaking onboard. Jump/climb is a far better verb here.Tvx1 21:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)