4430/17349
We’re doing well on getting through the Community boxset and we’re now on season 4, the one which Dan Harmon was not involved in, which is better than I remembered it being, but still suffers from the absence of its creator. But a few reference to the film Die Hard prompted my wife to ask if we could watch the film. I knew I had a fantastic wife, but it was not until today that I realised how fantastic.
I have seen Die Hard approximately 10,000 times before, but would happily watch it 10,000 more (the Proclaimers missed a trick on this one), because I am a Die Hard fan. What an unexpected treat for a Saturday afternoon. No one can say the spark has gone out of our marriage.
There are going to be some spoilers here, which I have to tell you about, because you’ve only had 25 years to see this film and I know you’re busy.
It is a truly great film, basically a cartoon for grown ups, but it commits to its world and is properly funny and gripping. Alan Rickman is amazing in it and you can make him even funnier by spitting out the words “Harry Potter†after each of his lines. They realised, even before Harry Potter existed, that everything is better if you put a Snape in it. I would like to do a remake where everything is the same, except Hans Gruber is replaced by Severus Snape. I suppose it’s similar in some ways to my Tim from the Office and Jedwood/Deadwood ideas. But it’s different, because this time it’s Severus Snape. He has the combined powers of a shrek and a Tim from the Office.
And yeah, so what if I become known as the man who spends countless millions of pounds recreating films and TV shows exactly, except one of the actors in it plays a different character (or Jedwood appear in every scene), which then only 500 people watch, I don’t care. I know that those 500 people will fucking love it. Can you put a price on being mildly entertained by an annoying trope? No you can’t.
Afterwards my wife suggested that Die Hard 2 should be the enquiry into what went on in Die Hard, with John McClane being forced to take the rap for destroying the building. I would have some sympathy with that. He certainly takes an enormous risk dropping those explosives down the lift shaft. The explosion is bigger than he expected and it might well have taken down the whole structure making him responsible for the death of all the hostages. I’d also challenge his behaviour when he goes to the roof and spends valuable seconds searching for his wife, before informing the hostages that there are explosives primed to take out them all out. Maybe get them off the roof first John and then look for you wife. Even from a selfish point of view, if your wife is on the roof it will be easier to find her once she’s off the roof rather than when she’s been blown to bits.
It would make for an enthralling film though. Less action than you’d expect from the franchise (unless terrorists took over the courtroom halfway through and McClane had to single-handedly save all the people who had just sent him to prison), but as much as things worked out mainly OK for the hostages, I’d say there was a level of risk that makes McClane eminently suable.
Personally I would like Die Hard II to be the story of what happened to the man on the plane who advises McClane to take off his shoes and make fists with his bare feet. I doubt his day was eventful as McClane’s but I like the character and want to know what he got up to and what his life is like. Perhaps at the end of the story of his evening in LA, McClane turns up all bloody and broken and punches him in the face and says, “Thanks for the advice, pal. Look what it did to my feet.†It would hardly be the fist feet guy’s fault, but you couldn’t blame John for being a bit peeved.
I would also like to see a Sliding Doors style remake of Die Hard where the man on the plane doesn’t tell McClane to take his shoes off and make fists with his feet and see what differences that makes. It would still be a high-octane action film, but McClane would have his shoes on and so things would subtly change and the outcome might be different. It could be called “Fisting Feet†or “Sliding Shoesâ€. You could intersplice it with action from the original Die Hard to demonstrate how one small offhand remark makes a lot of difference.
Certainly these ideas are all better than Die Hard 4.0 and I am guessing the fifth film, that even I refuse to watch. There aren’t enough tangential sequels/prequels to successful films. Idiot producers decide that what made Die Hard great was the explosions and the action and just film the later films with ever more elaborate stuff, but actually as ridiculous as Die Hard is, it’s the subtlety of the ideas and the wit that make it work. There is more excitement in John McClane jumping off the top of a building tied to a fire hose than him jumping out of an exploding helicopter. My wife was gasping as the hose nearly pulled McClane out of the window. Seriously, as ridiculous as that scene is, it’s simplicity is what makes it work. Why are you such fucking idiots, producers? Why don’t you get why films work? Your focus groups probably can’t tell you, because they don’t consciously realise it, but you should. It’s your job. Stop doing Die Hard wrong.
You can’t even say that Die Hard 5 is for the die hard fans. Because the die hard fans like Die Hard.
I’ve added a couple of nice items to my ebay auction site (all proceeds go towards making more online content), a 1994 “Richard Herring is Fat†flyer and a 1997 “This Morning With Richard Not Judy II†flyer. These are very rare items now (I am not sure I even have a spare TMWRNJ one) and the Stewart Lee one at least is probably a good investment.
Check out all my stuff that’s on auction here And if those things are too expensive for you, remember every month I give away things like this to the lucky draw winner from the monthly subscribers. To be in with a chance of winning (and to get access to a secret channel and more)
donate a pound or more a month here.
