'Cos I do!
-
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 11 years ago(March 06, 2015 08:48 PM)
"John McClane is no longer the ordinary detective who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now he's a fearless supercop who feels that he can overcome anything, which is NOT the John McClane character at all".
Sorry, but McClane was a fearless supercop who feels he can overcome anything since the second movie, and that was especially true in the third one. I mean, for effs sake, in the third one he survives a bunch of dumb and unrealistic situations one after another after another, from a train crash to a flood in a tunnel. -
durdin888 — 14 years ago(November 15, 2011 06:06 PM)
Not to mention, he cried about you running away and then did the exact same thing. Though, in his defense he did come back and write a novel to cover up the fact that he ran.
Back on topic, I still strongly feel Die Hard 2 set the low standard bar for the series by featuring a happy go lucky McClane. Then went around mentioning the first film every chance possible as if it's awesomeness would some how rub off. Let's not forget the Janitor side kick either.
Can you blow me where the pampers is? -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(November 18, 2011 11:39 PM)
So, you really think you can lecture someone in a film that you don't even remember yourself?
"a) No he didn't know very well that they could crash airplanes, nobody did and that's why they were all surprised when it happened. Stewart had only said 'any attempt to restore your systems will be met by severe penalties', the nature of the penalties were never made clear and Lorenzo even suspected it was a bluff.
First of all, it was very clear since the beginning that McClane didn't agree with Lorenzo that it was just a bluff. It is 100% clear that McClane knew these "terrorists" were the real deal as he was trying to prove it to Lorenzo and everyone else. And so, if a group of terrorists take over the airport's equipment it isn't logical to think that they could do some real damage and thus it is fine for McClane to go around killing terrorists, but if someone implies that there may be bobby trapps when entering the church, it is very logical for McClane to assume that the equipment that controls the airplanes will also be bobby trapped and that he must pursue ALONE a group of armed trained soldiers to get a detonator from them expecting them to not use such detonator? Right, because the most logical thing for such an average guy to do is to go on a pursuit ALONE to try and get a detonator he doesn't even know if it exists for bobby trapps he isn't even sure exist.
Let me get this straight according to you, In DH4 McClane is stupid because he provokes the guy that is threatening his daughter, but in DH2 McClane isn't stupid even after he kills bad guy after bad guy when they were threatening an entire airport (including his wife).
Also, according to you in DH4 McClane acts like a superhero who illogically takes the challenge to defeat the bad guys, but also, according to you, in DH2 McClane isn't a superhero and he acts very logical when he decides to go ALONE after a group of trained soldiers to force them to give him a detonator to disarm some bobby trapps, a detonator that he doesn't even know if it exists, hoping that the armed soldiers won't use it on some bobby trapps that McClane doesn't even know about. Of course this is logical, how didn't I see it before.
"How would you describe his behaviour here, if not 'running away' from the argument?"
Oh wait! I know that one let's see, I think it's this one: I'd describe it as getting tired of your stubbornness and false sense of accomplishment oh and also of your made up information. -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 05:22 AM)
Oh, I see you are still around here with your weak, baseless, invalid, made up points. How fun. Critics and audiences like this film, and you don't. Just accept that and you'll live a happier life.
-
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 06:53 AM)
There's no point in even reading what you have to say. You will never accept when you're wrong. What's the point in arguing with you? What's the point in proving you wrong? You are like one of those christians that will never accept how wrong they are in saying that evolution is a myth. No point in arguing facts with someone as deluded as you.
-
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 07:09 AM)
Well, look at that! Most people think Die Hard 4 is the best Die Hard movie since the first one! How about that! Its ratings are actually comparable to the first Die Hard movie. General audiences and critics agree that you are wrong and I'm right.
Die Hard 1
Imdb users: 8.3
Metascore: 70/100
Tomatometer: 94%
Audience (according to RT): 91%
Yahoo! users: 4 stars
Die Hard 2: Die Harder
Imdb users: 7.0
Metascore: NA
Tomatometer: 65%
Audience (according to RT): 73%
Yahoo! users: 3 1/2 stars
Die Hard with a Vengeance
Imdb users: 7.5
Metascore: 58/100
Tomatometer: 50%
Audience (according to RT): 83%
Yahoo! users: 3 1/2 stars
Live Free or Die Hard
Imdb users: 7.4
Metascore: 69/100
Tomatometer: 82%
Audience (according to RT): 86%
Yahoo! users: 4 stars -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 07:47 AM)
It is relevant in that I'm showing you how far from reality your whole argument has been since your first post. You've just been posting and posting and posting about how DH4 is crap, and the other Die Hard movies are better and that DH4 can't compare to DH1 blah blah. Well I just proved you wrong, those ratings indicate that people think DH4 is the best one since DH1, and the ratings of DH1 and 4 are also similar. So, I've just proven that DH4 can be compared to the first one and it is also generally considered the best since the first one. Of course you are entitled to dislike it, but if you are going to argue that it is genuinely worse than DH2 and 3, well, no one is going to take you seriously.
-
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 08:02 AM)
a) No he didn't know very well that they could crash airplanes, nobody did and that's why they were all surprised when it happened. Stewart had only said 'any attempt to restore your systems will be met by severe penalties', the nature of the penalties were never made clear and Lorenzo even suspected it was a bluff.
b) McClane went to the annex skywalk because he suspected Barnes and the SWAT team were headed for an ambush and wanted to warn them. He never wanted to rile the terrorists and only drew his gun when Barnes and the SWAT team were getting slaughtered.
a) He knew people's lives were in danger, why? Well, he knew they were professionals. He said so himself since the beginning when he has warning the police. He knew they were not people to EFF with.
b) McClane also goes after General Esperanza's plane, even after Stuart recalibrates the instrument landing system. Again, this is McClane acting irrationally, acting like the hero, acting like in DH4, even though at this point he knows they can crash planes and bla bla. So, there you have it. No point in saying that McClane acts like a hero or irrantionally only in DH4.
You can rationalize this all you want, but you would be wrong.