Which Die Hard movie is the best?

[Lancia]

BTW we can discuss movie sequels in general here.

[RickJay]

@CookingWithGas

I consider that an installment in a series, which was planned from the beginning, rather than a sequel.

But it wasn’t.

Yeah, I know Lucas says he had it all planned out. He did not.
As to “Die Hard” so far the votes are 26 for the original, 2 for Vengeance, and nothing for the rest, and that is absolutely the correct ratio.

The reason that is is because the movies really don’t even need to be about the same guy. What makes Die Hard so thoroughly awesome is, first and foremost, John McClane. But he didn’t really need to be in Die Hard II. Could have been any action hero. Same with the fourth and fifth ones. Only Vengeance really worked in part because it was John McClane again.

[What_Exit]

@RickJay

But it wasn’t.

Yeah, I know Lucas says he had it all planned out. He did not.
As to “Die Hard” so far the votes are 26 for the original, 2 for Vengeance, and nothing for the rest, and that is absolutely the correct ratio.

The reason that is is because the movies really don’t even need to be about the same guy. What makes Die Hard so thoroughly awesome is, first and foremost, John McClane. But he didn’t really need to be in Die Hard II. Could have been any action hero. Same with the fourth and fifth ones. Only Vengeance really worked in part because it was John McClane again.

In fact I think Die Hard II wasn’t originally written for John McClane at all. It is roughly based on a book about a different NYPD detective. There is an earlier John McClane related movie that starred Sinatra I believe. The detective has a different name.

[terentii]

@RickJay

But it wasn’t.

Yeah, I know Lucas says he had it all planned out. He did not.

Nor did Alec Guiness plan or particularly want to play Obi-Wan Kenobi again, according to what I’ve read.

[terentii]

@What_Exit

In fact I think Die Hard II wasn’t originally written for John McClane at all. It is roughly based on a book about a different NYPD detective. There is an earlier John McClane related movie that starred Sinatra I believe. The detective has a different name.

Tony Rome?

[What_Exit]

@terentii

Tony Rome?

No, I looked it up to be clear:

@wiki

The Detective is a 1968 color neo-noir crime film in Panavision directed by Gordon Douglas, produced by Aaron Rosenberg and starring Frank Sinatra, based on the 1966 novel of the same name by Roderick Thorp
…
In 1979 Roderick Thorp wrote a sequel to The Detective called Nothing Lasts Forever, in which Leland is trapped in a Klaxon Oil Corporation skyscraper after it is taken by German terrorists and must rescue his daughter and grandchildren. The novel was adapted into the 1988 20th Century Fox film Die Hard, in which Joe Leland’s name was changed to John McClane, the object of his heroism was changed from his daughter to his wife, and Klaxon became the Nakatomi Corporation. Fox was contractually obligated to offer Sinatra the lead role, but he promptly turned it down as he would have been more than 70 years old when filming. Coincidentally, Lloyd Bochner’s son Hart was also featured in Die Hard. The film launched a film franchise that continues into the 2010s.

[Rhiannon8404]

As far as I’m concerned there is only one “Die Hard movie”. That would be, of course, Die Hard.

[muldoonthief]

@Slash1972

The one with SLJ of course.

Normally, that would be correct. But there’s an exception to the SLJ rule:

@kunilou

Two words: Alan Rickman

[CarnalK]

@CookingWithGas

I can’t think of a movie, offhand, where a sequel was better than the first.

Aliens
Mad Max
Momma Mia

[kayaker]

@Rhiannon8404

As far as I’m concerned there is only one “Die Hard movie”. That would be, of course, Die Hard.

And it’s a Christmas movie.

[Rhiannon8404]

@kayaker

And it’s a Christmas movie.

Damn straight.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@CookingWithGas

I can’t think of a movie, offhand, where a sequel was better than the first.

I daresay the following sequels were better than their predecessors:

Terminator 2
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Aliens
That said, I’ve only ever seen the first three Die Hard movies and the second one was god-awful. While I like Samuel L., he couldn’t elevate #3 to the point where it could match the original.

[Kennedy1960]

@Bryan_Ekers

I daresay the following sequels were better than their predecessors:

Terminator 2
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Aliens
That said, I’ve only ever seen the first three Die Hard movies and the second one was god-awful. While I like Samuel L., he couldn’t elevate #3 to the point where it could match the original.

The thing with the three sequels you mentioned is all three are very different films, arguably in part in different genres, than the films they succeeded.

Terminator 2 is a big budget summer action film complete with cheesy one liners, humor, and a broad sense of scope whereas T1 is a low budget slasher film, except that instead of a knife wielding assassin like Michael Myers, the killer is a cyborg from the future. Two totally different films in both substance and style, and if T2 was released today it would probably be panned for the humor, as being too campy.

Wrath of Khan is a revenge story for one, and secondly, is primarily an action sci fi film whereas TMP is a sci fi epic, basically Trek’s answer to 2001.

Aliens is very similar to T2 in that it is also an action film following from what is essentially a slasher horror movie, except Alien is a slash film set in space with an alien as the killer.

It is hard to argue which is really “better” since really in all three cases, it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

Maybe that is why those sequels worked? By being so radically different? I don’t know. But no Die Hard film really diverts from the formula setup in the first film except for With a Vengeance.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kennedy1960

It is hard to argue which is really “better” since really in all three cases, it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

I don’t find it personally difficult to say three especially succulent oranges deivered more satisfying snacking experiences than two apples that were above-average and one that was bland and boring while trying to be all cosmic and shit.

[dropzone]

@TroutMan

As to the OP, how is this even a question?

I mean, DUH!

@Kennedy1960

… and if T2 was released today it would probably be panned for the humor, as being too campy.

Note that I am a child of the '60s/'70s and cannot imagine something “too campy.” Camp and kitsch were what I lived and breathed. And snark, though we lacked the word.

[Mahaloth]

Buckle up, I’m “that guy” in this situation.

I liked Die Hard 4 the most. Yes, *that *one. Here, I’ll rank the series for you.

1. Die Hard 4 - I thought this was one of the best “big gap” sequels I’ve seen. I liked almost everything about it, especially since they released the proper R-rated cut on DVD.

2. Die Hard - Obviously, a great movie. I have no issue with people liking this one more than 4. It’s cool.

3. Die Hard With a Vengeance - I love this one, too. Really, really excellent.

BIG GAP:

4. Die Hard 2 - totally mediocre and kind of a snooze. Not incompetent, not horrible. Just boring.

HUGE GIGANTIC GAP

5. Die Hard 5 - Should not have been released. An incomprehensible, incomplete movie. I will never re-watch it and while it isn’t as bad as Highlander 2, it is about as bad as Phantom Menace. OK, maybe a bit better than Phantom Menace, but a truly terrible sequel. I could tell during promotion that Bruce Willis hated it, too. It was a bad experience for everyone.

[Anamorphic]

@TriPolar

Whoever voted for Vengeance should be banned. Not just from the board, from the planet.

Completely disagree. The first one is clearly the best of the series, but Vengeance is a fine sequel, a well-made, fun film that is eminently rewatchable.

[2nd_Law]

Oops – clicked the wrong button in the poll. You can guess which one.