Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/disney-planning-reboot-die-hard-franchise/

No real news, just speculation. We do know that Disney cancelled the next installment of Die Hard called "McClane." I'm calling it right now:

 

- 100% the next John McClane is gonna be a woman in the reboot. Probably "Joan McClane"

- 60% sure Joan McClane will be a lesbian

- 40% sure she's gonna be a woman of color. If she's black, she'll have genius level intelligence.

Posted
1 hour ago, ajax said:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/disney-planning-reboot-die-hard-franchise/

No real news, just speculation. We do know that Disney cancelled the next installment of Die Hard called "McClane." I'm calling it right now:

 

- 100% the next John McClane is gonna be a woman in the reboot. Probably "Joan McClane"

- 60% sure Joan McClane will be a lesbian

- 40% sure she's gonna be a woman of color. If she's black, she'll have genius level intelligence.

Two words:  Shia lebouf

Posted
42 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

So she won't be a cop?

She will. She'll "accidentally" walk into the wrong office, thinking it's hers, and shoot Hans Gruber.

Posted
13 hours ago, ajax said:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/disney-planning-reboot-die-hard-franchise/

No real news, just speculation. We do know that Disney cancelled the next installment of Die Hard called "McClane." I'm calling it right now:

 

- 100% the next John McClane is gonna be a woman in the reboot. Probably "Joan McClane"

- 60% sure Joan McClane will be a lesbian

- 40% sure she's gonna be a woman of color. If she's black, she'll have genius level intelligence.

20% she's in a wheelchair

15% she has a Hispanic surname

Posted

How do you "reboot" Die Hard? It was a movie about a regular guy stuck in a building. The sequels were all increasingly ridiculous (I assume the cancelled "McLane" was him on an exploding space station?) because the appeal of the first one was just a normal dude kicking ass in a fucked up situation. Well that and the whole creating a new genre of movie thing.

  • Like 1
Posted

1 and 3 are great.  2 is a sneaky good film IMO, obviously not as good as the other 2, but still one I'll sit and watch when it pops on.

 

No need for reboot.

Posted
6 hours ago, Drew said:

1 and 3 are great.  2 is a sneaky good film IMO, obviously not as good as the other 2, but still one I'll sit and watch when it pops on.

 

No need for reboot.

The problem with #2 - and I'm as good at engaging suspension of disbelief as the next guy - was the utter stupidity of planes staying in a holding pattern and running out of fuel with multiple other airports just a few minutes flying time away.

Posted
The problem with #2 - and I'm as good at engaging suspension of disbelief as the next guy - was the utter stupidity of planes staying in a holding pattern and running out of fuel with multiple other airports just a few minutes flying time away.


Oh cmon it was a shitshow at National and who wants to go to Baltimore.
  • Like 2
Posted

I'm surprised by the love for 3, I thought it was the weakest of the original trilogy.  Simon the stutterer was the nemesis?  Weak.  Should have let the cold hearted killing bitch be Darth Vader.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, mulletpelini said:

I'm surprised by the love for 3, I thought it was the weakest of the original trilogy.  Simon the stutterer was the nemesis?  Weak.  Should have let the cold hearted killing bitch be Darth Vader.

wtf is wrong with you?

 

Oh.   Yeah, right.

Posted
13 hours ago, mulletpelini said:

I'm surprised by the love for 3, I thought it was the weakest of the original trilogy.  Simon the stutterer was the nemesis?  Weak.  Should have let the cold hearted killing bitch be Darth Vader.

negged.

Posted

LMAO @ 3 being almost as good as 1,  put down the pipe, dude.   Both 2 & 3 sucked, didn't even bother watching the other one(or two) sequels they made after those. 

  • Like 2
Posted
On 8/17/2019 at 12:49 PM, Drew said:

1 and 3 are great.  2 is a sneaky good film IMO, obviously not as good as the other 2, but still one I'll sit and watch when it pops on.

 

No need for reboot.

Hell yes.

I love Die Hard 2.

Loved William Sadler as the bad guy in that one.

Posted
On 8/17/2019 at 8:13 PM, TrashMaster G said:

The problem with #2 - and I'm as good at engaging suspension of disbelief as the next guy - was the utter stupidity of planes staying in a holding pattern and running out of fuel with multiple other airports just a few minutes flying time away.

Cmon dude....they couldn't communicate with the planes!!!!!

Posted
On 8/17/2019 at 9:58 PM, mulletpelini said:

I'm surprised by the love for 3, I thought it was the weakest of the original trilogy.  Simon the stutterer was the nemesis?  Weak.  Should have let the cold hearted killing bitch be Darth Vader.

I have seen it dozens of times and I still don't know how they did the water jug trick.

  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Nole-4-Life said:

I have seen it dozens of times and I still don't know how they did the water jug trick.

It annoyed the shit out of me that they skipped the intermediate steps, and went straight to them completing the last step. "We magically have exactly two gallons in the 3 gallon bottle and 5 in the 5 gallon, let's just pour a gallon out to make 4!" Just lazy. What's the point of a riddle, if they aren't going to show our heroes being smart enough to figure it out? There aren't even that many steps:

Fill the 5 gallon jug, pour out 3 gallons into the 3 gallon jug leaving 2 in the 5, empty the 3 gallon, pour the remaining 2 gallons into the 3 gallon, refill the 5 gallon, pour out 1 gallon from the 5 to fill the 3, leaving 4 in the 5 gallon jug.

I didn't really like 3 for a bevy of reasons, but all the riddles were magically solved, or solved by someone else. So what was the point?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

I didn't really like 3 for a bevy of reasons, but all the riddles were magically solved, or solved by someone else. So what was the point?

To distract the NYC cops.

Posted
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

It annoyed the shit out of me that they skipped the intermediate steps, and went straight to them completing the last step. "We magically have exactly two gallons in the 3 gallon bottle and 5 in the 5 gallon, let's just pour a gallon out to make 4!" Just lazy. What's the point of a riddle, if they aren't going to show our heroes being smart enough to figure it out? There aren't even that many steps:

Fill the 5 gallon jug, pour out 3 gallons into the 3 gallon jug leaving 2 in the 5, empty the 3 gallon, pour the remaining 2 gallons into the 3 gallon, refill the 5 gallon, pour out 1 gallon from the 5 to fill the 3, leaving 4 in the 5 gallon jug.

I didn't really like 3 for a bevy of reasons, but all the riddles were magically solved, or solved by someone else. So what was the point?

Damn! Thank you!

Posted
44 minutes ago, MoJames said:

To distract the NYC cops.

I understand the point in the context of the movie. I don't understand dedicating a significant amount of the run time to riddles while not deriving any character or viewer satisfaction from the answers.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...