Die Hard or Go Home: Saving the Die Hard Franchise

[TMC]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/274743

Posted by Trevor Snyder on 02.26.2013

Many fans are understandably calling for John McClane to hang it up
after the dreadful A Good Day to Die Hard. But could a sixth film
still save the series and allow the iconic character to go out on a
high note? 411's Trevor Snyder examines...

"Few fans of the series would disagree that this sclerotic fifth
installment should probably be the last."
Dana Stevens, Slate

"This would be a good day to kill this franchise for ever."
Roz Laws, Birmingham Post

"One of the great action franchises in movie history not only delivers
its first bomb, it puts a crater in the franchise so large I fear it
can't be rebuilt."
Bob Grimm, Tucson Weekly

"The well has certainly dried up for the Die Hard franchise."
Julian Roman, MovieWeb

"Loud, insultingly low-concept, and irony-free... today may be the
perfect day to take Die Hard out back and put a bullet in its head."
Jeff Meyers, Metro Times – Detroit, MI

"This series needs to die here. That would be something to "Yippee Ki-
Yay" about."
Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

"If this is going to get passed off as a Die Hard movie, it's a good
day to kill off the franchise."
Nolan Woodford, 411mania

"Die Hard is dead."
Devin Faraci, Badass Digest

7 Reasons Everyone Agrees A Good Day To Die Hard Sucks:
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/reasons-a-good-day-to-die-hard-sucks/

Chris Stuckmann goes in depth about A Good Day to Die Hard and all
it's problems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJqDiCu6eA

A Good Day to Die Hard is a bad movie. In fact, forget "bad" - it's
depressingly terrible, especially if you happen to be a big fan of the
Die Hard series. Poorly directed, and written by the worst
screenwriter in the business, it's a movie that seems almost DESIGNED
to anger fans of the franchise. And this is coming from a guy that
quite liked Live Free or Die Hard (most people I know usually seem to
agree that, when taken on its own merits, the fourth film was a fun
enough summer action movie…I have a feeling its standing in the fans'
eyes is about to take a HUGE leap up now that this fifth one has come
along).

What A Good Day to Die Hard is NOT, however, is an appropriate end to
the Die Hard saga. Or, at least, it shouldn't be, not matter what
numerous detractors are claiming. Bruce Willis has been saying for a
while now that he would like do six Die Hard movies and then hang up
the John McClane character for good. After watching A Good Day to Die
Hard, it's easy to look at that as more of a threat than a promise.
But here's the thing – no matter how awful that fifth film was (and,
again, it was mighty awful), I don't want to dread the next one. It's
just not a good feeling not to be excited for a new Die Hard movie.
And besides, I sure as hell don't want A Good Day to Die Hard to stand
as McClane's final cinematic adventure. We can't really let him go out
like this, can we?

In the immediate wake of this travesty, it's easy to question whether
a sixth and final film is really a good idea. I remain convinced it
could be…as long as some crucial steps are taken in the development of
the next movie. Don't forget, Rocky V was an embarrassment, as well,
and that series was able to rebound with a much more fitting finale.
James Bond has been bouncing back from lackluster entries for years.
There's no reason not to believe Die Hard couldn't do the same. It's
just clear that, given how this last one turned out, A LOT of work is
going to have to go into crafting a truly worthwhile sixth and final
Die Hard film (my personal pick for a title – Die Hard or Go Home, or
maybe Die Hard or Die Trying). I don't claim to have all the answers
for how to make up for A Good Day to Die Hard, but here are six key
elements those involved with McClane's next adventure need to keep in
mind if they really want to deliver the epic send-off we're all hoping
for:

TAKE CONTROL AWAY FROM BRUCE WILLIS

Ironically, the one essential ingredient to a new Die Hard movie is
also the most potentially destructive. Don't get me wrong –Willis IS
McClane, and we all love him for it. But the Willis of today is
arguably not the same Willis we fell in love with back in the early
days of the series. Even putting aside Kevin Smith's stories of how
difficult Willis is to work with (which is kind of easy to do because,
quite frankly, who really wants to take Kevin Smith's side against
John F'N McClane?), it's hard to look at some of Willis' recent output
and not have doubts about his present motivation. I'm not saying every
Willis movie during his prime was a home run, either, but can you
imagine Die Hard with a Vengeance-era, or even Sixth Sense-era Willis
agreeing to star in films as forgettable as last year's The Cold Light
of Day or Fire with Fire? What's that? You didn't hear of those? Oh,
that's probably because they were the latest in a string of straight-
to-DVD Bruce films! That's right...Bruce Willis is starring in
straight-to-DVD movies, as if he's Steven Seagal or something.

Now, I'm not saying Willis has gotten lazy, but…well, actually, I
guess I am saying that. Heck, I even wrote an entire article about it
last year. I mean, did anyone else notice that in A Good Day to Die
Hard, whenever McClane and son were running away while under enemy
fire, Willis could hardly even be bothered to duck down? Hell, the
most exciting action shots of McClane were either almost certainly
stunt doubles, or definitely a CGI Willis.

But, hey, he's playing an older McClane, so I can live with Willis not
wanting to do too much crazy physical work in a sixth Die Hard. All
things considered, it might even be more appropriate for the
character's age. The real problem is that Willis' vision of the series
no longer seems to match up with what the fans want to see. At some
point after Die Hard with a Vengeance, Willis mistook the audience's
elevation of McClane to cinematic icon to mean that they wanted him to
turn into a superhero type character. Keep in mind that, at the time
of its release, Willis said Live Free or Die Hard was the best film in
the series, and that he was personally involved with the development
of A Good Day to Die Hard, as well. I'm guessing it's the unfortunate
influence of his good buddies Sylvester Stallone and Arnold
Schwarzenegger, but whatever the case, Willis doesn't view John
McClane as an "everyman" hero anymore. He wants to portray him as an
indestructible superman (and, judging by the evidence in the latest
film, he wants to do so with the least amount of onscreen effort
possible). All this nonsense about the larger stakes of these "21st
century Die Hard" movies – a term Willis and the current producers
keep tossing around – is even more baffling given that it ignores the
fact that the original Die Hard is STILL the one fans keep returning
to and re-watching over and over. Can't the man see we want more of
THAT?

The good news is, Willis doesn't appear to be a complete lost cause.
The potential for greatness is still there. Sure, there were the
aforementioned straight-to-DVD stinkers, but last year also saw Willis
deliver excellent work in both Looper and Moonrise Kingdom. What did
those two films have in common? Both were guided by the vision of a
strong-minded filmmaker. Guys like Wes Anderson and Rian Johnson can
get great performances from Willis because, most likely, they're not
willing to just sit behind the monitor and him just coast by with
little effort (like, say, Kevin Smith was). This mentality needs to be
applied to the new Die Hard on every level, starting with the
producing. Willis himself has been the one consistent guiding hand
through all five Die Hard movies, but the sixth movie – at least on
the behind the camera side – needs to be wrestled away from him and
put in the hands of people who actually care about giving this series
a fitting finale. For instance, did you know Joel Silver was a
producer on the first two Die Hard movies? Why not try to bring him
back to wrap it up? Sure, Silver has had his share of duds, but I've
got to believe he would never have let a Die Hard movie under his
control sink to the depths of A Good Day to Die Hard. Find a strong
producer like Silver to steer the pre-production ship, and while
you're at it:

HIRE A TALENTED DIRECTOR

You'd think this would go without saying. But Willis and company
obviously thought John Moore was a decent choice for A Good Day to Die
Hard, so apparently not. Now, to be fair, there was nothing in Moore's
previous filmography to suggest he would deliver the sort of
incoherent, nauseating shaky-cam action sequences that sunk the movie…
but there was nothing to suggest he would make a good movie, either.
Moore's career has been underwhelming at best. He's the guy you hire
when you have an OK little action script that you want to quickly make
for a modest budget and make a nice little return investment on,
without putting too much thought into it. He is NOT the guy you give
the keys to one of the biggest action franchises in history to. And,
while I personally don't have anything against Len Wiseman and thought
he did a fine enough job with his Die Hard entry, I think you need to
shoot much higher for a sixth and final movie.

The conventional wisdom among many Die Hard fans right now seems to be
to bring John McTiernan back for the grand finale. On one level, I
understand that thinking, but on the other hand I can't help but
wonder how distracting McTiernan's recent legal problems will continue
to be in the foreseeable future, and how much it might effect his
attention while making a new movie (to say nothing of the fact that he
hasn't directed anything since 2003). We had our great times with
McTiernan and Die Hard – I think it's probably time to move on.

Again, just like I haven't given up on Bruce himself, I think there's
still a good chance you could hit a home-run with choice of director
here. Consider what Sam Mendes did with Skyfall. I'm not sure any
directors of that caliber are interested in a sixth Die Hard, but you
can't tell me that a number of talented action directors out there
weren't inspired by this series growing up, and wouldn't love the
opportunity to put their own stamp on it (as was the case with Mendes
and Bond). If this is truly going to be the last Die Hard, put it in
the hands of someone who is going to blow us away. My personal choice
would be The Raid: Redemption's Gareth Evans, but for a more thinking-
outside-the-box choice, why not ask Rian Johnson if he's interested?
We've already seen with Looper that he can get good work out of
Willis, and a Die Hard film would seem to fit into his apparent desire
to constantly try out different genres. Those are just two decent
options…I'm sure there are others (if we're going with my idea for
Joel Silver as producer, maybe he could bring along Shane Black to
write and direct?). My point is, you don't have to aim low and just
bring in a journeyman director. Give this to someone with a real
vision, and let Die Hard 6 be this series' Skyfall

DON'T JUST IGNORE LUCY AND JACK McCLANE

I bet a lot of fans will be calling for a sixth film to completely
abandon McClane's offspring, preferring him return to lone-wolf hero.
While I DO agree that McClane should spend most of the film's action
scenes by himself, I think it would be a mistake to forget these two
altogether. It's too much of an easy cop-out just to dump them from
the franchise, even if you didn't like the last couple films. Besides,
Mary Elizabeth Winstead has actually been quite charming in her brief
appearances as Lucy (and I don't want to meet anyone who would be
against more Winstead in anything), and Jai Courtney did his best with
what little the script offered him in A Good Day to Die Hard. Neither
have done anything to deserve being cut out of the picture.

Besides, not only has the franchise firmly established their
characters now, but the fourth and fifth films have also established a
new major theme for McClane – repairing his family. This is,
thematically, a strong motivation, and one that still works even
despite the recent films' failings. For the narrative of McClane's
current journey to feel complete, the final movie should not only
feature both kids (even if in reduced roles), but should also
definitely bring back Bonnie Bedelia as Holly. C'mon, man, think of
everything John McClane has given us over the years. Is it too much to
ask to let the guy end the series happy, reunited with his wife and
children? I don't think so.

By the way, this also means DO NOT KILL JOHN McCLANE!! I know a bunch
of fans are going to say it's the only appropriate ending, but that's
just typical cynical fanboy BS. I like a depressing ending as much as
the next guy, but it's not suitable for every story. I never liked the
rumored idea of a fifth Lethal Weapon film that would kill off Riggs
and Murtaugh, and I don't like the idea of killing off John McClane.
These characters deserve happy endings. That being said…

BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF JOHN McCLANE

I might not want the dude to die, but I damn sure want him beat to
holy hell, covered in blood and barely able to walk by the end of
whatever ordeals he faces in the next movie.

This obviously goes back to what I was saying about Willis' bizarre
obsession with making McClane seem invulnerable. We saw it slightly
tip that way in Live Free or Die Hard, though not nearly as much as
that film's critics will have you believe (watch it again and you'll
see McClane actually takes quite a beating in the movie, before
eventually having to shoot himself through the shoulder to save the
day). But A Good Day to Die Hard officially tipped McClane over to
full Unbreakable mode. In the span of one minute, McClane gets out of
a truck that has flipped and rolled numerous times without a scratch
on him, and is then immediately hit dead-on by another car…which he
also gets right up from as if nothing has happened!! Are you kidding
me? This is Terminator shit right here. It's simply not that
interesting to watch any hero with that level of invulnerability, and
especially not John McClane. In the first Die Hard, some glass in his
bare feet damn near incapacitated the man. It felt real, and made us
care more about him. This can't really be that tough to figure out,
right?

DON'T IGNORE McCLANE'S HISTORY

One of the most frustrating things about the last two Die Hard movies
is how they seem determined to distance themselves from the original
trilogy…not just stylistically, but also in terms of the character's
own history. It might have been a mistake for Die Hard 2 to copy the
first film's formula as closely as it did, but there was also
something to be said for the continuity of seeing not only Holly, Al
Powell and Richard Thornburg return, but also acknowledgment of what
McClane went through a couple years ago. That continuity was also felt
in Die Hard with a Vengeance simply by virtue of having Simon Gruber
as the villain.

For whatever reason, Live Free or Die Hard didn't seem all that
interested in painting John McClane as the infamous figure he almost
certainly SHOULD be by now. Heck, there was even a scene where the
villainous Gabriel uses his computer hacking skills to peek into
McClane's personal life, and he doesn't seem to notice ANYTHING about
the previous three times McClane has dealt with this kind of thing.
Likewise, aside from some offhanded comments by Jack about how
"killing bad guys" is John's biggest talent, the most recent film also
fails to indicate how commonplace this is all becoming for the guy.
Die Hard is a series that should still feel a little grounded in
reality, and for us to accept that reality you need to show us that
not only is this is a guy who has lived through all this crap, but
that other people are aware of it as well.

What if, in the sixth film, McClane is now retired, but has become a
minor celebrity after writing a book about his exploits (a book that
Lucy put him up to writing, by the way, since there's no way that
would ever be his idea)? It might be fun to see McClane's exasperation
whenever he is recognized on the street...particularly if it keeps
happening while he's also involved in battling those aforementioned
"bad guys." It would be a nice, subtle meta-commentary on the
character's iconic status, while also allowing for a few references to
the previous movies.

And speaking of continuity, we come to the final crucial element for a
successful sixth and final Die Hard:

THE VILLAIN NEEDS TO BE A GRUBER

This is where I suspect I might lose some of you, as I imagine many
will consider the idea of yet another Gruber coming for revenge
against McClane to be a little too cute. And you know what…I don't
necessarily disagree. But in terms of a conclusion to the Die Hard
saga, I think it's the right kind of cute.

What started with a Gruber must end with a Gruber, the old saying goes
(or at least it will, if they listen to me and make this movie).
There's a certain kind of lyrical poetry that would come from ending
McClane's cinematic saga with another Gruber as the main villain – it
would call back to our best memories of the series, as well as
insinuate a sort of (believable) destiny/fate that kicked in for
McClane when he first encountered Hans all those years ago. Now, the
reveal of yet ANOTHER brother might be a bit of a stretch…but perhaps
a sister? Or, better yet…Hans and Simon's father. I know what you're
thinking – wouldn't that dude be hella old? Yes, he would…which would
make him even scarier. An elderly man in the twilight of his life
decides his last act on this earth must be to destroy the man who
robbed him of both his sons (but not, perhaps, before first trying to
mentally destroy McClane by targeting HIS children…see, I told you
there was still a place for Jack and Lucy). For once, it's not at all
about money…it's about pure revenge and the death of John McClane. And
the fact that the elder Gruber most likely intends to die himself (or
is at least at peace with the idea) makes the scenario extra chilling.
Just imagine, oh, I don't know…Werner Herzog in this role. Willis vs.
Herzog? Can you honestly tell me that doesn't already sound a lot
better than anything we saw in A Good Day to Die Hard?

Now, granted, old-man Gruber probably isn't going to be the guy you
want running around actually taking it to McClane throughout the
entire movie. You'll want a good secondary villain for that role,
perhaps a Gruber cousin or just somebody absolutely loyal to the
Gruber family for some reason. I'm thinking a Mads Mikkelsen type
would be good here. Having two featured villains also gives Jack his
own big villain to kill, if you decide to go that route in the third
act.

So there you have it – a number of moves that I honestly believe could
send this series out with the respect it deserves. You'll notice one
thing I didn't harp on was the necessity of an R rating. Obviously,
given the more intense, revenge-driven story I'm advocating, I would
PREFER an R…but considering how superior the PG-13 Live Free or Die
Hard was to the R-rated A Good Day to Die Hard, it doesn't seem like
something worth fixating on right now. Concentrate on a compelling
story and exciting actions sequences first; THEN we can work out how
much swearing and actual bloodshed the movie requires.

Oh, one more…it wouldn't hurt to throw a Reginald VelJohnson cameo in
there, even if it's just a mid-credits scene showing a now retired
McClane and Powell fishing together or something. C'mon, you know
you'd dig it.

Read more at http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/274743#gPqZu6x1WRfJywpO.99

[Halmyre]

On Feb 26, 8:33 am, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that, at the time
> of its release, Willis said Live Free or Die Hard was the best film in
> the series,

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

--
Halmyre

[RichA]

> McTiernan and Die Hard – I think it's probably time ...
>
> read more »

Kill it. "I'm on vacation!"