Should Bruce Willis stop starring in action movies?
- Thread starter karamazov80
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Snake Plissken
40s "men" still cry about being bullied here
I think everything within Die Hard 1-3 isn't out of the realm of reason, that is unless I'm forgetting something.
cokebabies
Super Freak
Michael Scott: You know what, here's the thing about Die Hard 4. Die Hard one, the original, John McClane was just this normal guy. You know, he's just a normal New York City cop, who gets his feet cut, and gets beat up. But he's an everyday guy. In Die Hard 4, he is jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter. In air. You know? He's invincible. It just sort of lost what Die Hard was. It's not Terminator.
I think everything within Die Hard 1-3 isn't out of the realm of reason, that is unless I'm forgetting something.
There was one part in 3 that was questionable. The train explosion and crash. McClane climbs out of the wreck chuckling away to himself....OK, maybe he could survive it but to be laughing after an incident like that? A lot of people could have just been killed for all he knew. And you know it wasn't some reaction of 'nervous shock' - they wrote it in as part of McClane's smartass type quirks. The jump onto the ship might have been a bit OTT aswell, not sure they could have plausibly survived that. One does allow some suspension of disbelief but sometimes they go a smidge too far. Particularly in 4 though (haven't seen 5)
Last edited:
batfan08
Super Freak
Thus the "exclusively" after "Willis' fault" in my post. It's just like those people that say Batman & Robin is all Schumacher's fault. I'm not saying that he didn't have anything to do with it, but I just think that the blame shouldn't purely lie on Willis' shoulders, when it's clear that the people making these films are ****tards.
thenammagazine
Super Freak
Lethal Weapon > Die Hard (close second though)Nah, given the're so indebted to him for the franchise, you can pin it on him. He's the star. He's the one carrying it. I'm sure if there was something he didn't like he'd voice an opinion, throw a tantrum and lock himself in his trailer (which I think he actually spoofed himself in a movie), and pout until he got his way.
batfan08
Super Freak
Still, though, why should he have to do that? Shouldn't they at least take some of the blame for making these films what they are beforehand?
thenammagazine
Super Freak
Every actor at his level has a stack of scripts they chose to do or trash (and keep in mind they probably have readers to preview scripts to approve or trash before they even get that far). He'd be able to read the script, telephone in changes to be made and even get the director he wants before ever even agreeing to do it. Add to that the fact that he was Exec. Prod. for A Good day and you can throw absolutely all the blame right in his lap.
batfan08
Super Freak
No, you can't. Why shouldn't they know better? Why should Willis have to babysit them and fix the stuff that they got wrong?
thenammagazine
Super Freak
I like how you just instantly bypassed the EP point I made. Is Willis your personal Jesus?
Snake Plissken
40s "men" still cry about being bullied here
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
It was shock.
batfan08
Super Freak
I like how you just instantly bypassed the EP point I made. Is Willis your personal Jesus?
No, I understand that, and, as for the latter, frankly, I think he's turned into kind of a crazy ******, but I also believe in placing the blame where it lies, and, so long as Willis didn't write the ****ty script and direct it, the blame shouldn't fall solely on him. Was he a part of it? Sure. I've already stated that, but it's ludicrous to think that the guys who actually wrote the movie shouldn't face any blame because Willis was in it.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
He approved it. He signed on to do it. The film would not have gotten done the way it was without his approval.
No it wasn't. It was McClane laughing because they had decided that McClane's primary response to danger and near-death is to laugh at it. This was the beginnings of the 4 & 5 McClane, who no longer feared for his life like the McClane of the first film.
Having said that, overall I think 3 was good. That part excepted it still felt to me like this was the same McClane as in 1 and 2.
Snake Plissken
40s "men" still cry about being bullied here
It's what made it so great, he was just a average cop and not a superhero.
[ame]https://youtu.be/xjef-o2GqAA[/ame]
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
I don't have the scene handy, but it just seems like you're giving your opinion on what you think the scene is, VS, what the scene actually is.
But like I said, I don't have it handy.
But like I said, I don't have it handy.
Where this McClane sighs with sheer relief at the 1:32 mark, the McClane of Die Hard 4 onwards would probably laugh and make a joke. And he wouldn't say ''please don't let me die'', he would assume that he would survive anything. And of course he would, its a movie. But if the characters themselves know that they're safe there's no tension whatsoever for us watching. This is one reason why Indy 4 blew chunks. Marion Ravenwood found everything hilarious even though herself and her son were in what should have been considered mortal peril. She even knowingly drove them off a cliff, evidently knowing in advance that the tree they landed on would gently lower them to the ground.
Last edited:
I don't think there was anything to misremember. He throws the bomb out the back of the train just before it explodes. The explosion causes the train to crash violently through the underground station. A whole bunch of people could have been killed. Maybe none were in fact killed but how would McClane know. He pops his head up out of the wreakage chuckling away to himself
BurningRage
Super Freak
He should make another "Look Who's Talking."
Similar threads
