Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Die Hard 2.0.. WTF?

  • 08-01-2012 4:35pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 108 ✭✭


    I'm just after watching Die Hard 2 for the first time and while its sort of entertaining it happens to be the most ridiculous movie ever in my opinion.. Can I just ask were passenegers allowed bring tasers on to planes in the early 90s and have you always been able to use phones on planes? And the last scene where the 2 guys are fighting on the wing of a plane and the colonl just looking at them with a machine gun which moments later turns into a knife when he's fighting John McClane.
    I know its only a movie but people are always banging on about how movies aren't as good as they used to be when obviously todays movies are miles better.. Maybe its just older people refusing to let go of what WERE once good movies...


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 129 ✭✭Oasis44


    I'm just after watching Die Hard 2 for the first time and while its sort of entertaining it happens to be the most ridiculous movie ever in my opinion.. Can I just ask were passenegers allowed bring tasers on to planes in the early 90s and have you always been able to use phones on planes? And the last scene where the 2 guys are fighting on the wing of a plane and the colonl just looking at them with a machine gun which moments later turns into a knife when he's fighting John McClane.
    I know its only a movie but people are always banging on about how movies aren't as good as they used to be when obviously todays movies are miles better.. Maybe its just older people refusing to let go of what WERE once good movies...

    To answer your questions yes you could bring tasers onto planes in the early 90's and yes planes had phones like they do now but that's mainly on US planes. The reason your man doesn't use the gun on mc clane at the end is because the wing is loaded with petrol and guess what happens if you shoot petrol? Hence the reason he uses the knife. BTW did you spot Colm Meaney in this movie he is the captain on the plane the bad guys crash - your right though this movie is far feathed by any stretch of the imagination - better than part 4 though :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭Elysian


    Having watched (and loved) that very film last night I should be able to answer some of your questions:
    Can I just ask were passenegers allowed bring tasers on to planes in the early 90s and have you always been able to use phones on planes

    The phones they were using on the planes weren't their own phones, hence John not recognizing the number Holly rang him from. They were public wireless phones which were available onboard the plane.

    diehard2i.jpg
    And the last scene where the 2 guys are fighting on the wing of a plane and the colonl just looking at them with a machine gun which moments later turns into a knife when he's fighting John McClane.

    When the Colonel was making his way out to the wing McClane was on the General told the Colonel not to fire his gun as the wing is fully fueled.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 108 ✭✭IrishJack89


    Thats fair enough but he hardly thought of hitting the fuel tank while they were fighting, plus he could have crouched and then shot across so he wouldn't hit the wing (I play Modern Warfare, I know the ins and outs).

    I would be sceptical about the tasers though but I suppose it is a movie. Which Die Hard is the best by the way?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 129 ✭✭Oasis44


    Thats fair enough but he hardly thought of hitting the fuel tank while they were fighting, plus he could have crouched and then shot across so he wouldn't hit the wing (I play Modern Warfare, I know the ins and outs).

    I would be sceptical about the tasers though but I suppose it is a movie. Which Die Hard is the best by the way?

    Jesus dude do you even need to ask? Part one obviously:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,692 ✭✭✭Jarren


    The one with Hans Gruber obviously:)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭TiGeR KiNgS


    get with 90's OP


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭Goldstein


    The one odd thing I found is when they storm the church, see that the whole place is wired to explode imminently and then...nothing happens - it never explodes.

    Still though: It wouldn't be Christmas without Die Hard 2


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭Inbox


    Ha I think these are brilliant movies , no matter how many times I've seen them if they're on the Telly ,i watch them. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭James Forde


    Die Hard 2.0 :confused:

    It's Die Hard : Die Harder

    Did you like "Die Hard 4.0"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    I know its only a movie but people are always banging on about how movies aren't as good as they used to be when obviously todays movies are miles better.. Maybe its just older people refusing to let go of what WERE once good movies...

    except it's well known that die hard 2 was actually pretty crap and was until part 4 easily the weakest in the series.

    Die hard has reverse star trek syndrom

    1 and 3 are great while 2 and 4 are meh


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,154 ✭✭✭the whole year inn


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    except it's well known that die hard 2 was actually pretty crap and was until part 4 easily the weakest in the series.

    Die hard has reverse star trek syndrom

    1 and 3 are great while 2 and 4 are meh

    I agree,seen 3 last night and was savage!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    The one with Hans Gruber obviously:)

    DIE HARD 1.0 is the greatest movie ever made.
    We should have a DIE HARD 1.0 subforum


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 108 ✭✭IrishJack89


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    except it's well known that die hard 2 was actually pretty crap and was until part 4 easily the weakest in the series.



    Die hard has reverse star trek syndrom



    1 and 3 are great while 2 and 4 are meh



    Thats funny because all I've seen is Die Hard 2 and 4. I thought 4 was a bit far fetched as well with all that computer crap going on. Still there watchable..

    I'll have to give 1 a go so..

    And 1 more thing actually.. Do any of those super hero guys like John McClane ever die or in any of the movies or are they all invinsible?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    the plot and the bad guys plan in die hard 2.0 makes no sense whatsoever
    There's one point where two groups of bad guys are shooting at each other with blanks to fool the good guys

    having said that it is a ok yarn and worth a watch 5.7/10

    DIE HARD 1.0 = 15/10
    DIE HARD 2.0= 5.7/10
    DIE HARD 3.0 = 7/10
    DIE HARD CGI = 2/10


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,293 ✭✭✭✭Mint Sauce



    I would be sceptical about the tasers though but I suppose it is a movie. Which Die Hard is the best by the way?

    It was an internal flight, internal flights in the US pre 9/11 were like boarding a bus.

    :D

    Plus, its a movie.

    ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,675 ✭✭✭corcaigh07


    Thats fair enough but he hardly thought of hitting the fuel tank while they were fighting, plus he could have crouched and then shot across so he wouldn't hit the wing (I play Modern Warfare, I know the ins and outs).

    I would be sceptical about the tasers though but I suppose it is a movie. Which Die Hard is the best by the way?

    dear lord, sur i suppose McClane would recover from an entire clip by resting against a wall...:rolleyes:


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,669 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Far-fetched is not a valid criticism for a balls out action movie, much less any of the die hards!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,114 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I still don't understand why they got Colm Meaney to play a supposedly English airline pilot. His attempt at a "RAF English" accent is atrocious, sounds like David Niven struggling not to fill his trousers. :o

    I had to wonder: why was Holly permitted to carry a Taser on board the plane? They did have airline security back in 1990 ... :rolleyes:

    Lastly: the idea of the flame following the trail of kerosene, catching up with the plane and exploding, was the subject of a Mythbusters episode, and was busted on all counts. They couldn't light aircraft kerosene or diesel at all, no matter what they tried - only normal petrol. Then the flame moved extremely slowly, depending on how "fresh" it was, and there was no explosion even if permitted to reach the tank.

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Dotrel


    My favourite is Die Hard 1.1 (the UTV edit) Yippee-ki-yay, Kemo Sabe!


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,669 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    bnt wrote: »
    Lastly: the idea of the flame following the trail of kerosene, catching up with the plane and exploding, was the subject of a Mythbusters episode, and was busted on all counts. They couldn't light aircraft kerosene or diesel at all, no matter what they tried - only normal petrol. Then the flame moved extremely slowly, depending on how "fresh" it was, and there was no explosion even if permitted to reach the tank.

    Yea, I think i saw that. They myth busted the whole cars exploding when they go off cliffs thing too. The only way they got it to work was fill the car with explosives.

    There was a heated argument on another thread recently too about how bullets don't actually knock people off their feet in real life either.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Die hard 1 was just an awesome piece of cinema. But let's not forget that there was a decent amount of suspended disbelief required to enjoy it aswell.

    A new york cop who seems to have an intricate knowledge of explosives, including how to arm them using a computer screen and a chair?!

    The bit where he wrapped A fire hose around himself And jumped off the building was a brilliant stunt but alot harder to believe then somebody getting a taser on board a plane!

    That aside, movies like die hard are there to enjoyed, not rationalised!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,243 ✭✭✭LighterGuy


    Dotrel wrote: »
    My favourite is Die Hard 1.1 (the UTV edit) Yippee-ki-yay, Kemo Sabe!

    Man you are bringing back memories! :)

    My dad taped Die Hard 2 when it premiered on UTV when I was a kid. Must of been around 1993/1994 as movies took 3 years to get onto the tv.

    I watched that tape so many times growing up and it wasnt until I saw the untouched version did I realise how much UTV butchered it!
    Everything was censored with dub-overs. The word f**k was never said... and as we all know Die Hard 2 has the word f**k dozens of times in it.

    It cut the bad guys getting shot (a shot of the 'squibs' going off) Such as the Robert Patrick Terminal Scene. I also remember the line of "mother fu*ker" being replaced with "Mothers arm" :confused: ... I only remember that cause even as a kid i questioned what "mothers arm" meant. lol.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,955 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Oasis44 wrote: »
    guess what happens if you shoot petrol?

    Nothing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    I only watched the original Die Hard the other night (only 3 euro in Tesco for the first 2 movies).

    Holy sheeeeeeeeeeeit I wasn't expecting it to be that good. Alan Rickman makes the best movie villain ever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭jonnyfingers


    I don't think Die Hard and "believability" can be used in the same sentence. They are what all action movies should be, great fun, plenty of shooting and blood (except 4), plenty of swearing (except 4), a likeable hero, good villains (well only if your surname is Gruber), one-dimensional and expendable henchmen, and ridiculous plots that are crazy fun to watch.

    I will watch all the Die Hard films (4 included!) over and over again. In fact I must have seen 1 and 2 over 20 times each at this stage and 3 easily over 10 times. And I own none of them on DVD!:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭podgemonster


    "Do you really think you have a chance against us Mr. Cowboy"

    Hans you are a legend! Love the series.
    Die Hard 1 > Die Hard 3
    Die Hard 3 > Die Hard 2
    Die Hard 2 > Die Hard 4
    Die Hard 4 = Dirt


    One plot hole on the first one that i never noticed was this...
    Hans' man Teo spends the whole the whole movie slowly cracking through the vault. At the end when Hans and the only terrorist that isnt killed are clearing it out, John tracks them down and enters the vault. End result is Hans exiting the stage via the GLASS WINDOW. My question is, if the vault was so tough why didn't they just disguise themselves as window cleaners and go in via the window.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    Dotrel wrote: »
    My favourite is Die Hard 1.1 (the UTV edit) Yippee-ki-yay, Kemo Sabe!

    In a big thick Northern accent


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Nah part one was the best but the baddie bitch in 4 that gets killed in the lift shaft(elevator if your from america) is very hot hot hot.

    In order of goodness based on first time watching

    Best

    1
    3
    4
    2

    Isnt john amos(part 2) the coloured dude just a brilliant actor. Remember him in coming to america and of course kunta kintae.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,679 ✭✭✭hidinginthebush


    bnt wrote: »
    I still don't understand why they got Colm Meaney to play a supposedly English airline pilot. His attempt at a "RAF English" accent is atrocious, sounds like David Niven struggling not to fill his trousers. :o

    I had to wonder: why was Holly permitted to carry a Taser on board the plane? They did have airline security back in 1990 ... :rolleyes:

    Lastly: the idea of the flame following the trail of kerosene, catching up with the plane and exploding, was the subject of a Mythbusters episode, and was busted on all counts. They couldn't light aircraft kerosene or diesel at all, no matter what they tried - only normal petrol. Then the flame moved extremely slowly, depending on how "fresh" it was, and there was no explosion even if permitted to reach the tank.

    As said above, they really didn't. That's why they got so much tougher after 9/11. Before that, you could nearly get on an internal flight in the US without id. It was only slightly more inconvenient than boarding a bus.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 301 ✭✭Ellian


    Cyril Rafaelli was the only saving grace of Die Hard 4 - things kicked up a gear any time he was onscreen. Everything else was total meh


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Tomk1


    Die Hard 1&3 had chenistry.
    No matter how many times I've tried to watch DH4, it always ends the same with me switching it of in frustration, once I got half-way. :(

    I see Patrick Stewart is set to be the badie in 'A good day to Die Hard'... I'd love to see JM actually dying in the end, also if Gurger's Son could appear in the plot seeking revenge.
    Source: Wiki-Die Hard


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭Mr. K


    Die Hard 2 really is terrible, painfully 90s and so juvenile. I think 4 is much better, despite the CGI and weak villain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭ziggy


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,243 ✭✭✭LighterGuy


    Alternative ending for Die Hard 3 :D (yes, its real)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    One plot hole on the first one that i never noticed was this...
    Hans' man Teo spends the whole the whole movie slowly cracking through the vault. At the end when Hans and the only terrorist that isnt killed are clearing it out, John tracks them down and enters the vault. End result is Hans exiting the stage via the GLASS WINDOW. My question is, if the vault was so tough why didn't they just disguise themselves as window cleaners and go in via the window.
    Plan A was to get the code from Takagi, Plan B was to get the FBI to knock out the power for the 'final lock'. Both plans needed the hostage scenario


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,692 ✭✭✭Loomis


    Karl, schieß dem Fenster.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭podgemonster


    Dempsey wrote: »
    Plan A was to get the code from Takagi, Plan B was to get the FBI to knock out the power for the 'final lock'. Both plans needed the hostage scenario

    You don't say:P
    I know what the plan was. (Watched it every Christmas since I was 11). But the vault scene in the final showdown has a glass window which would be easier to break than the 7 locks of the vault door.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    A glass window inside the vault, I dont think so! The final scene wasnt inside the vault


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭Plazaman


    Dempsey wrote: »
    A glass window inside the vault, I dont think so! The final scene wasnt inside the vault

    +1 The last scene was in the room where the vault was, not in the vault itself.

    I can't understand Mc Clanes relationship status with the wife throughout the movies, the continuity is a bit screwed. In 1 they're divorced (on the brink of it) but all lovey dovey at the end. In 2, she's still living in a different city so still seperated but then all lovey dovey at the end. In 3, BAM, splitsville AGAIN! In 4, a brief mention of her, the daughter takes centre stage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,528 ✭✭✭JoeA3


    Plazaman wrote: »
    +1 The last scene was in the room where the vault was, not in the vault itself.

    I can't understand Mc Clanes relationship status with the wife throughout the movies, the continuity is a bit screwed. In 1 they're divorced (on the brink of it) but all lovey dovey at the end. In 2, she's still living in a different city so still seperated but then all lovey dovey at the end. In 3, BAM, splitsville AGAIN! In 4, a brief mention of her, the daughter takes centre stage.

    I think they were back happily "together" in 2, but she was still working in L.A. and traveling home for Christmas! In 3, they were definitely separated and McClane had gone off the rails as a result. In 4, I think we're left to assume they're long since estranged.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser



    I'll have to give 1 a go so..

    WTF!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

    You have never seen die hard!!

    And you start a thread to dis' die hard 2!!

    Yippee-ki-yay, IrishJack89! ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,243 ✭✭✭LighterGuy


    Plazaman wrote: »
    +1 The last scene was in the room where the vault was, not in the vault itself.

    I can't understand Mc Clanes relationship status with the wife throughout the movies, the continuity is a bit screwed. In 1 they're divorced (on the brink of it) but all lovey dovey at the end. In 2, she's still living in a different city so still seperated but then all lovey dovey at the end. In 3, BAM, splitsville AGAIN! In 4, a brief mention of her, the daughter takes centre stage.

    In the first, I took it as they were still married but seperated. Even John gets angry as she is now using her maiden name (you are still my wife talk) But through the events of the film of john saving the day ... they rekindle. Thats grand. Tis the whole 'happy ending' deal.

    The second, as you say, they are still together and the movie ends with them being together. Thats also grand because they kept continuity.

    Then the 3rd? could be defined as rehashing. So many sequels do that. Be it an entire plot line or a characters previous standpoint (McClane originally being "seperated") ..... Or maybe it was because Die Hard 3 was originally Lethal Weapon 3's script. Maybe they didnt want to rewrite too much to allow for his wife?

    I still find it funny that they cast Samuel L Jackson, a black man (ala Danny glover) as the sidekick in the revised Die Hard 3 script :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,144 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Jaysus if you thought Die Hard 2.0 was far fetched you should take another look at Die Hard 4.0 - the stuff with the jet is just silly. That doesn't bother me though, tis an ok movie - not a patch on the earlier ones mind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,286 ✭✭✭ankles


    What always always :mad: bugs me abour DH2 is Lt Col Colm Meany on his Windsor Airlines flight stating that he's flying on fumes or whatever and when the plane crashes there's an enormous fireball. WHAT THE HELL CAUSED THE FIREBALL!!!! There was no fuel, it should have just been a break-up with no flames at all.

    I know, suspend disbelief and all but it really bugs me.
    It also kinda bugs me that surely if it created a long fiery wreck this could have been used as a landing strip like what happens at the end. :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    ankles wrote: »
    What always always :mad: bugs me abour DH2 is Lt Col Colm Meany on his Windsor Airlines flight stating that he's flying on fumes or whatever and when the plane crashes there's an enormous fireball. WHAT THE HELL CAUSED THE FIREBALL!!!! There was no fuel, it should have just been a break-up with no flames at all.

    I know, suspend disbelief and all but it really bugs me.
    It also kinda bugs me that surely if it created a long fiery wreck this could have been used as a landing strip like what happens at the end. :(

    The fireball thing was 'artistic licence' :pac:
    At the end, wasn't the plane trying an emergency landing and they were close to the ground as it is?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 108 ✭✭IrishJack89


    Plazaman wrote: »
    +1 The last scene was in the room where the vault was, not in the vault itself.

    I can't understand Mc Clanes relationship status with the wife throughout the movies, the continuity is a bit screwed. In 1 they're divorced (on the brink of it) but all lovey dovey at the end. In 2, she's still living in a different city so still seperated but then all lovey dovey at the end. In 3, BAM, splitsville AGAIN! In 4, a brief mention of her, the daughter takes centre stage.

    Is the main guy called John McClane in all the movies?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭Jumboman


    bnt wrote: »
    I still don't understand why they got Colm Meaney to play a supposedly English airline pilot. His attempt at a "RAF English" accent is atrocious, sounds like David Niven struggling not to fill his trousers. :o


    If you think thats bad you should listen to Brendan Gleeson trying to do a posh English accent in mission impossible 2:D



Advertisement