'Cos I do!
-
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. -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 10:06 AM)
His thinking was that he could trade him for his wife, yes, but there's no way he could've known that it was truly possible for him to take General Esperanza as a hostage by himself. He was reckless, he confronted the bad guys and he went after Esperanza knowing full well that these crazy professional guys were crashing airplanes. There's no logical way in which he could've thought he could get away with it, yet he acted on his gut and everything went alright, just like in DH4. By your logic, I could also say that it was logical for McClane to think that Gabriel wouldn't shoot his daughter because he knew he wanted her as leverage, and he was thinking logically because at the end everything did work out for him.
Even after his wife was out of danger in DH2, McClane took it upon himself to try and bring the bad guys down. He went after them in the snowmobiles for no real reason at all, he went after them when they were escaping on the plane and he went after General Esperanza in spite of the fact that they could've continued crashing airplanes.
As I said, you can make up whatever excuse you want for this, but:- McClane acted like a hero in DH2 when he tried to bring down the bad guys by himself even after his wife was out of danger. He also acted like a hero in DH3 the whole film, even after knowing that Simon was just using him as a distraction.
- McClane acted like a superhero in DH2 when he survived his numerous encounters with professional soldiers, even when he didn't even have a real weapon. He also acted like a superhero in DH3 when he survived a train crash with no scratches, he survived a fall into a ship from a bridge, he shot a bad guy while drifting a car, etc.
- McClane acted illogically throughout the whole DH2 and 3. It was illogical for him to think that he could take Esperanza hostage and trade him for his wife, it was illogical for him to think that he could save the day by going after professional soldiers ALONE in a snowmobile, by thinking he could stop the bad guys from escaping on the plane. McClane acted illogically when he did everything he did on DH3.
And no, no one is running away from your weak, made-up argument. As I said, there's no point in arguing with a creationist about the theory of evolution, in the same way there's no point in arguing with someone like you, who can't accept when he's wrong.
I've already proven to you in a quantitative manner that everyone who matters think DH4 is much better than 2 and 3, so you can deal with it in any way you want. Your biased opinion is irrelevant in this matter. No one cares for it.
-
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(January 28, 2012 06:58 PM)
For fck's sake, again you are trying to rationalize the illogical thinking and superhero traits of McClane in the first three movies, by denying facts and throwing logic and common sense out of the window. You are NOT delusional at all. For you to be delusional that would mean that you believe in what you are saying, but no, you don't even believe what you are saying. What you are in is not delusion, but DENIAL, you know I'm right and you know your argument is weak as hell, but you just won't accept it. I won't even read all that, there's no point in reading your made up excuses and rationalization AGAIN. I'm sure you haven't come up with anything that makes sense at all and instead you are just sticking with your
"Average Joes kill hordes of professional soldiers on a daily basis! Average Joes can confront professional soldiers with no guns and survive! Average Joes think it is logical to go alone after professional soldiers! Average Joes can survive train crashes, jumping from bridges, fighting on airplane wings, flooded tunnels, etc, etc, etc, because that's what normal people do in their normal lives!". -
durdin888 — 14 years ago(January 30, 2012 02:50 PM)
Drooch, this getting embarrassing dude! You lost, move on. Continuously repeating the same disproved logic in an increasingly more anal retentive manner is fooling no one but the other kids (we call trolls) that follow you around.
Seriously Goondocks, check this dudes other posts and you will see that he has a history of name calling and over compensation for his obvious low self esteem (hence the ego masterbation), and he will never bring a legitimate argument. Instead he lives for turning threads into petty bitch fights (see above). Obviously, if the trolls are resorting to these tactics and not even trying to debate, then we can clearly call that a win.
Can you blow me where the pampers is? -
durdin888 — 14 years ago(February 13, 2012 09:58 AM)
Torrese, I agree with everything that you have posted! Right on!
-Drooch-
"Yet another content-free attempt to provoke from Durdin."
Kind of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? You're so easily distracted from the argument, you smell a bitch fight and just drop everything to engage, lol.
-Drooch-
"Remember, you're not in the least bit challenging, or provocative, or important."
The fact that you had to point this out say's exactly the opposite. Then you follow it with FIVE PARAGRAPHS . Baahaaaaaaaaaa, Baaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!! Spending a lot of words on something not challenging, provocative, or important. Well done Drooch.
-Drooch-
"something that exists purely to provoke and taunt the people"
The truth provokes and taunts you? WOW.
Can you blow me where the pampers is? -
Tales-from-the-Goondocks — 14 years ago(November 18, 2011 11:54 AM)
"Where in this thread have the supporters 'backed up their arguments time and time again'?"
Oh yeah, sorry about that. I just inferred that you were talking about the Live Free and Die Hard boards in general. However, I do think that durdin has given his reasons as to why this ain't that different from other Die Hard films. The fact that you don't agree with his reasons doesn't mean that he hasn't given any. -
durdin888 — 14 years ago(November 18, 2011 02:26 PM)
This last stand by Drooch is similar to his usual style Goondocks. Derail any actual conversation about the film and reduce the thread to a bitch fight. To prove this, all you have to do is look back at what he has contributed to this subject from the start. There are a couple posts on the first page which consist of him calling the film names and complaining about Willis' promotion of the movie. But get this, he never backs his statements up with any specific criticism from the film! The OP gave insight into his opinion as did a few others, but Drooch was NOT among them. Now he has resigned to writing overly long posts that are focused on "he said, she said tactics" and reducing every discussion to a bitch fight (analretentive, ever digressing, pinpointing of minor thread points).
So Drooch, put your money where you mouth is and bring a real argument instead of this childish meandering. However, I'm assuming he's going to ignore me Goondocks as he seems to be overly obsessed with you.
Can you blow me where the pampers is?