12 ways to fix the Die Hard franchise

Feature Simon Brew 15 Feb 2013 - 05:52

As A Good Day To Die Hard opens to mediocre reviews, we come up with a dozen things on our Die Hard 6 wishlist...

WARNING: The following contains light spoilers for A Good Day To Die Hard

By now, quite a few of you are likely to have seen the latest Die Hard movie. Chances are, many liked it a lot more than we did. However, with Die Hard 6 all but already confirmed, we've got a bit of a wishlist of things we'd like the franchise to sort out. So without further ado...

1. Enough of this 12A/PG-13 nonsense

We may as well start with one of the key areas of complaint, and get it out the way. Few people have any quarrel when a movie organically arrives at a 12A/PG-13 rating, because that's appropriate for the material, and for telling the story properly. Where the issue hits is in when a film is curtailed specifically to hit a family friendly audience, even when it doesn't feel appropriate for one. In the case of Die Hard, the US survived this one this time around, as A Good Day To Die Hard is uncut, and R rated. As you more than likely know, the same fate did not befall the film in the UK. We've said a lot about this issue this week though, so we'll move onto issues that seem equally, if not more pressing...

2. Remember it's not just an action movie

A Good Day To Die Hard is an ongoing carnival of pretty mindless, expensive action. Its dedication to lots of practical work is admirable, and you feel as though Fox has listened to some of the criticisms of the CG-heavy Die Hard 4.0.

However, go back to the original Die Hard. Let's pick one scene: remember when John McClane first encounters, face to face, Hans Gruber, and Gruber pretended to be Bill Clay? The tension was incredible in that scene, and it was testament to the fact that the original Die Hard was as much a thriller as it was an action movie. Furthermore, even up to the fourth film, there was a degree of detective work involved, in between the action set pieces.

Certainly, Die Hard movies need their action. But that's just one ingredient, and should never be the sole dish on the menu. At the very least, Die Hard 6 is crying back for elements of the thriller genre, that are non-existent in the latest film.

3. Be consistent with your characters

It makes sense, to be fair, that given the time that's passed since the first film, that John's offspring, Jack and Lucy McClane, are brought into the main narrative. Die Hard 4.0 thus covers the estranged relationship between Lucy and her father, while the fifth film does the same with Jack.

However, even appreciating the reconciliation at the end of Die Hard 4.0, the transformation of Lucy into the simpering daughter we get at the start of A Good Day To Die Hard feels like a cheat. That all the conflict was drained out of a feisty character by her father's heroic actions at the end of the last film. That's not to say their relationship won't have improved dramatically - he did save her life - but does it really mean that all the sparks between father and daughter are gone? Because it felt like it, and Lucy became a far less interesting, boring character as a consequence. She was estranged for the best part of two decades: surely that still has to matter?

4. It's not just about John McClane

Appreciating that he shares the lead with Jai Courtney in the new movie, Bruce Willis has inevitably felt like the dominant star of the Die Hard franchise. That's all good and fair, too. But that doesn't mean that the film should be the John McClane show. Even the derided Die Hard 4.0 introduced someone new, in the shape of Justin Long.

But then, go back to the two Die Hard films that effectively defined the series: the first two movies. They were bursting with other characters. that added massively to the end result. Thornburg remains a slimy hack, Ellis is a legend, Al kept McClane's insecurities at bay in the first film (less so in the second), while John and Holly's relationship seemed of massive importance too. None of these were the main driver of the narrative, but they enriched it enormously, and each has memorable moments. Throw in Zeus from Die Hard With A Vengeance too. At least one or two of these it'd be good to catch up with, and it'd feel as though there's more going on in the film's world outside of its central character.

5. It might be time to call back the Grubers

Bruce Willis is reportedly resistant to overplaying the nostalgia card when it comes to the Die Hard movies, and is apparently not happy with the films just retreading old ground. It's hard to argue too much with that. However, there's no getting away from it: the three Die Hard films with villains who weren't Grubers lacked, to varying degrees, a strong antagonist (and we love Timothy Olyphant usually). It might have been cheating to call for Simon Gruber in Die Hard With A Vengeance, but it worked, and it gave John McClane a tangible, interesting foe to pit his wits against.

Die Hard 6, if not a Gruber, needs a villain who leaves you convinced, if only for a few minutes, that he or she could genuinely win. That they could do damage to McClane, and that given the chance, they actually would. Rather than doing a little dance when they had the chance to shoot him, which is where we've seemed to end up.

6. Come home

Going to Russia didn't work. It reminded me of television sitcoms that used to go abroad for their Christmas specials, removing much of the context for the characters in the process. Die Hard, to work, needs to be on more familiar shores. There are other ways to portray McClane outside of his comfort zone - if he ever really is in Russia - than simple geography. That the whole film ended up in Chernobyl feels utterly alien to what Die Hard films do best.

7. Remember John McClane is a cop

In the first three Die Hard movies, John McClane had a clear and obvious line of command, that he was not at the top of. He had bosses of sorts, who told him what to do, and who were also generally a lot more wrong than right. Isn't that important for the character of McClane? To contextualise him as a flawed cop, rather than the Rambo-a-like machine gun toting action hero he's become? Because first and foremost, he's a detective, and that immediately gives him parameters. Sure, he goes over said parameters, but that's made clear, and part of the appeal. By Die Hard 5, he saunters around a foreign country shooting people, with barely a cop in sight. In fact, save for one scene at the beginning of the film, if you came to the franchise cold with A Good Day To Die Hard, there's a good chance you wouldn't actually know what McClane did for a living.

8. Let McClane be a hero

There's surely little point now in ignoring the fact that John McClane has almost single headedly foiled numerous terrorists, a national disaster, and now thermonuclear war (Matthew Broderick managed the latter with a game of tic-tac-toe of course). If Die Hard 6 is looking to build on the character, why not acknowledge that? Why not make McClane arguably the thing he's least comfortable being: a hero? After Die Hard 2, what McClane has done in his working life has been all but ignored, save for a few lines here and there. Couldn't the fact that McClane is a national, even global here, give him far more conflict than a trip to Russia could ever generate?

9. Remember John McClane is screwed up

Aside from an argument or two with his son, there's little sign of the angst and problems that have plagued John McClane's life in A Good Day To Die Hard. In his migration to superhero, his use of booze and painkillers has gone, and there's barely an acknowledgement of his divorce. Part of the thing that always made the character one to root for was the he was a bit of a fuck-up, though. He felt like a real man, who made real mistakes, and is having to live with them. By the end of the most recent film, not only is McClane not coming across like that, he doesn't even feel very likeable any more. He was a flawed, down to earth man once upon a time, who wore the scars of life. That makes him far, far more interesting as a leading character, and isn't something that the next movie should shy away from at all. Which brings us too...

10. Make it relatable

Just because a film is going bigger in scale, that doesn't instantly translate into being a very bad thing. Realistically, if Die Hard films were just Bruce Willis running around a different building, it's unlikely they've had got this far. However, there still needs to be something tangible to them that the audience can buy into. Again, even Die Hard 4.0 had that, as at least the hacking plot was something different to what the franchise had tried before, but at least still interesting (to a point). Die Hard 3? There was a school to be saved. The first two Die Hards, no matter how different the scale was, were basically about one man trying to save his wife. No matter how big and strange the surroundings were, that's something instantly that buys some degree of audience buy-in.

So: whilst I'd prefer the scale of the story to be reined in somewhat, it's the tightness of the characters, their motivations, and the way that relate to each other that needs the most pressing surgery. Because we need to relate, in some way, to what they're doing. Else what happens on screen becomes very hard to get invested in.

11. Perhaps we need to lighten up a bit

Having written many words despairing of what hasn't been the best week in the world of Die Hard, I do accept that audience expectations may not be helping. We'd criticise all concerned for simply retracing previous steps, and there is, for all the ire being aimed at the new film, at least some intention of shaking things up.

The thing is, Die Hard is Die Hard. It's a one-off action thriller that's rarely going to be beaten by any movie at all in the genre, let alone a new Die Hard one. Personally, I'd take a further sequel that sat at the level of Die Hard 2 or Die Hard With A Vengeance tomorrow if I could. Expecting anything more than that is inevitably going to lead to disappointment. I don't buy that the audience is the key problem here, but it's nonetheless been over 20 years since the last Die Hard film that fits the look and feel fans of the franchise remember. Anything that gets even close to it now might just be a bonus.

12. Choose a challenging director

This might just be the big one.

Bruce Willis is, to all intents and purposes, in charge of the Die Hard franchise now. Die Hard 3 didn't happen until 1995 because he rejected some of the ideas that were being developed for it. And when Willis is ready to make a new Die Hard film, everyone else jumps. He holds the keys, and if you read the tales recounted by Kevin Smith on the Die Hard 4.0 set, he knows it do.

Willis is a man we admire greatly for supporting some fantastic directing talent, when other star names weren't. Evidence? Quentin Tarantino with Pulp Fiction. M Night Shyamalan with The Sixth Sense. Rian Johnson with Looper. He's willing to take a risk, and willing to hook up with really interesting directors, at a point where other actors of his stature wouldn't.

So why won't he do it with Die Hard? Appreciating that someone like Spielberg is never going to do a Die Hard movie, I'm still staggered that John Moore managed to get the job. I've nothing personally against Moore - I didn't mind Behind Enemy Lines, I hated Max Payne - but I saw little evidence in the films of his I've watched that he should even have made the longlist for Die Hard 5. The same argument could be levelled at Len Wiseman, although I think he made a decent fist of Die Hard 4.0 in the end.

However, Die Hard 6 needs a strong director. It needs a director who will push Bruce Willis, who can make a stamp on the franchise, and who doesn't feel like they're just going through the motions of making a film that's basically been pre-approved by somebody else.

There's an argument that a bold, interesting director wouldn't want to take on the fifth movie in an action franchise, but I call bullshit on that. The 23rd James Bond film has just attracted Sam Mendes to direct, and the results are there for all to see. Why can't the Die Hard franchise be similarly ambitious in its choice of director?

It's at the point, I'd argue, where Willis either has to direct the next film himself, or choose someone else to be in charge. I'll be forever grateful to the man for a bunch of films that would never have been made without his clout and involvement. But I do fear that the problem with the declining ambition of the Die Hard movies might just be the man at the heart of them.

In summary, in spite of the new film, Die Hard is far from a dead franchise, and it's utterly salvageable. It's just the time has come to take a bona fide risk, and at least remember - even if it can't be fully recaptured - what made Die Hard so special in the first place.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Only one way to 'fix' the franchise as far as I'm concerned; put the original ending back into 'Die Hard with a Vengeance' (via DVD branching technology) and call it quits... no more 'Die Hard' movies, let's get FOX rolling on the long-delayed '24' movie, the script is finished and ready to go, if only FOX would give them the roughly $40m to do it right...

Die Hard 3 didn't happen until 2005

1995, not 2005.

Didn't Die Hard 3 come out in 1995 and not 2005?

If you want to know if a forthcoming film will be good or bad, look at who is directing and who wrote the script, then look at their track record. It really is that simple, and I find it mind-boggling that so many people seem to think that obviously-terrible films like the Total Recall remake might actually turn out to be any good.

The inverse is also true - the vast majority of people slated Dredd and
wrote it off when it was being made, whereas I knew it would at the very
least be decent, because of the pedigree of those involved - a talented
screenwriter, an Oscar-winning DoP, and a production studio with a superb track record. Again, I was mystified as to why people - self-professed film buffs - didn't actually LOOK at this freely available information, and put two and two together.

Of course Die Hard 5 is crap - anyone with a brain could have told you that from day one. I think point 12 is the most pertinent one - the main stumbling block (apart from the whole franchise being tired and long past it's prime, that is) appears to be Willis' ego - they can only hire subservient hack directors and writers who will let Willis and the studio execs boss them around, resulting in a compromised mess of a film. And Willis' ego is presumably also the driving force behind turning the character of John McClane from an affable, out-of-his-depth everyman into a generic invincible action hardman.

Die Hard films will never better the first. Most action films will never better the first Die Hard.

Why try?

When I heard Die Hard 5 was to be set in Russia, all I could think of was Police Academy 7: Mission to Mosow.

This is what Hollywood is doing to all the films we loved, prolonging them and ruining what we love about them.

Just saw that Fast and Furious are all set for number 7... jesus. Enough is enough.

It says 1995 not 2005.

I am taking my 13 year niece tomorrow and it sounds like this is who the movie has been made for.
If the box office is poor the franchise is over, if good expect more of the same from DH #6.
As Terry Stamp said yesterday, they are making very few films for adults these days.

This franchise is two steps shy of becoming a complete floating piece of dogshit...

'one step... one step'

The Fast and Furious franchise is a different beast entirely. It's been dumb guys in cars from the outset, and in terms full on trashy mindless entertainment they've all be solidly enjoyable (maybe not Tokyo Drift...). The tone has stayed the same, but the cars have got bigger. Die Hard has turned into a soulless cash in, F&F was always a soulless cash in, but an awesome on.

My idea for the next Die Hard:

John McClane is actually in a hospital in an alcohol-induced coma. His wife is remarried to a chiropractor and lives quietly in Connecticut. Lucy and John are still estranged, their relationship in shatters. John's son never existed at all and the events of the last two Die Hard films are the delusional fantasies to a scarred and battered mind - John's.

A group of terrorists take over the hospital where John is, demanding $100 million of else they will blow it and two others in the city to kingdom come. Any attempt to evacuate will end in a devastation explosion of all the hospitals. Basically every hospital, including John's, goes on total lock down.

Only McClane can stop the terrorists. Although he weak and muddy-headed, the threads of SuperMcClane (his delusion) linger in his mind. He attempts to do the sort of super-human stunts from the newer films and almost gets himself killed. He quickly discovers that a normal person can't do those things and that he's just a regular cop, one that is well past his prime.

He is forced to rely on his wits and whatever resources he has at his disposal, within the confines of the hospital, to thwart the evil doers. With the help of a few peripheral characters, of course, including Al, who is in the hospital for some sort of minor ailment.

He does, of course, and in the end we're given a hopeful hint that he can begin to pull himself together. Lucy comes to him and we see a glimmer of hope in salvaging that relationship. Holly comes to him, tells him she still loves him but has started her own life and hopefully he will do the same. As the film ends, the media swoop in and start to demand statements from John - and the threads of John McClane - Super Cop start to come together as the media finally begin to explore the story of how one regular cop can overcome the odds and save countless lives.

Of course this will never happen. This is a sure-fire winner, folks. And the whole 'it was all a dream' cliche is always a gold star in my book. ;)

Unrelated, but that new Tom Hardy realtime thriller sounds great as a placeholder for the 24 movie.

Also, more riddles. I love the St. Ives bit.

Make the next one a Christmas movie. Die Hard's 1 and 2 are both brilliant Christmas movies, I think that's one(or two) of the reasons why they work so well

Nope, it's pretty much just about McClane, all others are supporting characters, never a buddy movie like 3 4 or 5.

13. Don't bother making it.

It says 1995, why don't you open your eyes?

It didn't originally.

They definitely need to ground the action a bit. Not lessen it, but it it should be more believable than it was in 4. When you're taking down helicopters with cars etc, it's all gotten a bit too silly. Die Hard was partly great because the action felt believable (if not realistic).

I agree. I just mean in terms of things being dragged on.

It's doing my head in how many sequels there are these days.

How to Fix Die Hard????
STOP MAKING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Willis is too old, its been done, the first one is the best....just leave it...Leave it for GODS SAKE.....this is to Die Hard 4 just about got away with it. A Good Day to Die Hard is just another Indian Jones and the Crystal Skull........and look how that turned out.....

While I agree with this these franchise movies are not aimed at discerning movie viewers, but at catching the foot traffic out for the night and choosing the Die Hard movie because at the price of movie tickets it is seen as the safe bet. They will keep on making on making them as long as Bruce Willis wants to and if the foot traffic diminishes then they will just adjust the budget because there is always going to be a safe audience for these movies, provided they are not released in summer.

Okay so something like this. John is being followed around by a documentary film crew (making his retrospective career eulogy of behalf of the Police Dept - something he hates, but is forced to put up with).

They all get cornered in a museum (symbolism of JmC being a museum piece) during a heist-gone-wrong by black-sheep of the Gruber family nephew played in a simpering way by Hugh Grant.

John has to keep the documentary crew alive, despite his true feelings towards them and their constant endangering of him and themselves by their trying to get the best shot.

And he has to coach Hugh Grant into how to safely run a hostage/heist, because Gruber Junior is not cut out for this stuff, and many people will die hard if is inexperienced incompetence is allowed to flourish.

But he also has to foil the plot with minimal loss of life while trying to look good for the doco crew's cameras.

Cue much soul-searching via wisecracks, self-referential setups, explosions, improvised traps from a museum's stock.

And (in the last act) the big reveal that shows us Grant is a plot narrative, not the heist lynch pin who is revealed as........

Yep, and that's the reason Resident Evil 5 made literally 10 times the amount of money that Dredd did. Hooray for mediocrity!

It didn't. Was a typo, which we corrected. Not enough coffee!

nonsense- fast five was the best of the bunch- it was utterly inspired

How to make Die Hard 6, hire Shane Black, simples.

The Die Hard films greatest strength is now its greatest weakness - Bruce Willis. They'll never make another decent Die Hard movie with his ego and attitude. This will be the first Die Hard movie that ive not gone to the cinema to see. Die Hard was and always will be a masterpiece. Its done now, theres no life left in it and no point in continuing to use the Die Hard brand for Bruce to bring out a new film. This may as well be an Expendables side movie.

Die Hard is my favourite action / thriller film, and it kick starts my Christmas every year. Everything after that is half the film that came before it in the series. Once we get to Die Hard 3 the damage to the main character, and the film as a series, is irrepairable. Bruce Willis has now made me hate John McLane.

Bring back the christmas setting!

you been watching Dallas or something!

there seems to be a lot of hate for Willis across the boards of the internet atm but I totally agree with DoG on this point alone

Willis is a man we admire greatly for supporting some fantastic directing talent, when other star names weren't. Evidence? Quentin Tarantino with Pulp Fiction. M Night Shyamalan with The Sixth Sense. Rian Johnson with Looper. He's willing to take a risk, and willing to hook up with really interesting directors, at a point where other actors of his stature wouldn't.

Willis takes risks! sure 5 wasn't perfect but If you take the time to form your own opinions on the film rather than listen to others and critics I think you'll find it wasn't THAT awful, it was a risk that just didn't pay off

Timothy Dalton as the villain.

I always thought 16 Blocks was the direction Die Hard post-Vengeance should have gone. It's not a perfect film but it is certainly much better than 4 and 5

Verhoeven for 6.

Set the next one in a maximum security prison. McClane is there to escort/interview somebody..whatever.
A riot breaks out. JM is trapped in one location,like in the first film.
Hundreds of bad guys to battle with. Plenty of prisoners or guards to choose as allies.

Very sad, pathetic list by someone that apes the critics reviews. Remember when people used to enjoy movies, and not think of every one as Oscar material? Your ideas would just make for an even worse Die Hard movie. Die Hard 1 ended the Gruber story, and it should have, honestly. Die Hard 3, the villain could have been renamed easily, it was actually a poor rehash of the 1st one, but still a good film. It's funny, no one ever criticized 4, even though it was absolutely atrocious. Die Hard 5 was a very good Die Hard movie, Oscar winning compared to the last one. If you want to pick now to start ripping the franchise, I feel sorry for you. You're only doing this because you saw the critical reaction to the film, which was rumored to be the result of liberal Hollywood's disdain for Bruce Willis's defense of the second amendment.

If that is any reason to destroy an actor's career and rip their movies apart, I feel sorry for this industry, and the people that write about it. Die Hard 5 was NOT bad, and it was very enjoyable. I saw the same geeks rip apart Prometheus without proper reason last summer, and it just made no sense. Nothing can ever please you. By the time all the fan fiction is done and the real movies are made, the results are naturally disappointing. I suggest you find something better to do with your time and remember why we go to see movies. It's to have fun.

Really? So you're going to trash Die Hard 5 and let Fast and Furious off the hook, even after that terrible last film? You're an idiot.

Yeah, there goes your credibility, out the passenger side window.

Eventually, geeks turn against any movie franchise. That's why you can't make movies that cater to them. They're just not reliable.

That idea just sucks. Thank god you're not in the movie industry. Loser.

Thank god, the voice of sanity. I do feel that quite a lot of sad morons wait for Rotten Tomatoes before they form an opinion. These people talk trash about the film, then when you read their suggestions about making it better, it's just absolutely horrible. I suggest they take their old Blu-Rays out and watch them again! I wonder if many of these people sat in through the marathon. Watching 5 movies in a row, with just popcorn is not healthy. No wonder they hated Die Hard 5, I mean seriously! I hate anything after being trapped in a theater for half the day, eating junk food.

I can't believe these idiots probably think 4 was so great too. Just end the franchise, might as well. Make the next one PG and have Michael Bay direct it, I don't care.

Suck your mothers cock

Best to worst in the series Die Hard, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Die Hard 2 Die Hard 4.0, Big Mommas house, run for you wife, showgirls, colour of night, every episode of top of the pops helmed by Sir Jimmy saville then A Good Day to Die hard. I'd rather sit in portaloo on the third day of an IBS convention and have someone roll it down a hill than watch this film again.

Except the fact John has a son in Die Hard 1. As seen when Lucy answers the phone and the pictures in Holly's office.

Fast and Furious series got good again once they brought back the original cast and changed the series from a race movie to a heist movie.

When Tokyo Drift came out they always said they'll be 7 movies that show how Vin Dielsel ends up in Tokyo by himself. Tokyo Drift will chronologically be the last in the series. Fast and Furious 5 is the highest rated in the series so it hasn't gotten worse, its gotten better.

Last Fast and Furious was terrible? Erm Fast 5 is the most critically praise of the series. Who's the idiot really?

Unless you meant the last Die Hard is awful then I agree.

Nope, there goes YOUR credibility. Highest rated movie of the series, by a huge amount as well. You're in the minority in that one and you ridicule the majority for liking a movie you didn't.

Twilight is the worst culprit. Those movies need to be shot into space.

I see you're insulting everyone on this site. I take you you get bullies in school kid? It if you left school you still dwell in you mothers basement? Stop acting hard behind you keyboard and grow up and stop being a child.

If that last Fast and Furious was the highest rated in the series, there is no question that Hollywood critics are paid off. That was one of the worst, most ridiculous movies that I have EVER seen. Die Hard 5 was definitely way better than that crap.

That's a ridiculous thing to say, kid. So ALL reviewers were paid off, including the normal user reviews that people like you and I can post? I don't remember being paid off.

Fast and Furious 5 is the highest rated one. FACT!

Prove it.

Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. Highest rated movie of the series, fact.

Geat back Steven E. Souza to write with Jonathan Hensleigh either one can make a descent thriller. The villain has to be morally threatening i.e. he dosen't care, also each Die Hard had so many surprises along the way, keep your eyes open, Shane Black he is a very good writer each of these writers is more than capable. An original story to keep and eaudience crying for more, bring back Miss McClane.

I read where someone mentioned SHANE BLACK. I totally agree 100% he would be my first choice as writer/possible director. Him and Quentin Tarantino are 2 of the best character/dialogue writers in hollywood right now. I loved Black's Long Kiss Goodnight and Lethal Weapon scripts.

But then the aliens will find out we made Twilight! As a species, we'll never live that down.

I really like the following.....
Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jai Courtney to reprise roles of Lucy and Jack respectively......Mark Wahlberg to enter the fray as....maybe a secret villain who infiltrates through FBI maybe in vengeance for his brother Thomas Gabriel's death...Justin Long to reprise his role as Matt Farrell who was now chief programmer for infrastructure security,who is also a friend of his....Holly Gennero to be resurrected by its what name who is vice-president of Nakatomi corp in Tokyo... as a victim.
Willem Dafoe is the best thing to play Hans Gruber's son and another one as his son...Ma Zen who plays villain in Rush Hour 2 and subsequently The Campaign as a corrupt Chinese industrialist would play Takagi's brother who is the president in reality the head of the Yakuza in cahoots with the Grubers.The setting might take place in New York first then over to Tokyo,where the Nakatomi Corp is located at.
There must be a great link to the beginning...John Mctiernan is largely likely to direct this or subsequently would team up with Keviin Smith or whoever it will be.The film would be the very last Die Hard thing ever...and will run for exactly 2 hrs and 15-20 mins...

Oopsie....Another thing!!!Uhhh,Zeus Carver to make some cameo,ditto to Al Powell who is now NY Police Chief and also Miguel Bowman who is now FBI director.If it's Joseph Takagi,then George might be his brother as Hans Gruber has Simon as his younger bro and maybe Adolf as his son and Max is Adolf's son...George Takagi would have a daughter.

Oops,it's Tzi Ma of course....
Along with Willem Dafoe and also whoever you should know but Benedict Cumbertbach as his elder son and also not forgetting Michael Fassbender....
I believe that the Die Hardest must be the final installment and should be really about 2h 15-20mins....

Lucy Mcclane might be sporting a new bob hairstyle...Along with Jack who is really having some spiky hairdo even the handsome Matt Farrell....
Pretty please I would see both Willem Dafoe and Tzi Ma in action as well as the younger two....And even Mark Wahlberg to play villain again.....Possibly Thomas Gabriel's brother who is also happened to be Colonel Stuart(Frank?)'s son.....I hope it will be materialised....

And here's an absolute proof that Willem Dafoe is strongly opted and ready for Hans Gruber's only son....
" His ancestry includes English, Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss, and French"....-Willem Dafoe wiki....
You would rather like if Dafoe might say up a German accent and beyond....He did a very good job as a villain in Speed 2,Spiderman,Mr Bean's Holiday;where he could just sneer up,in fit of anger and just kick along with....
His face really more suitable for that...

Benedict really doing a very good job in Into Darkness....But I am sure he's so busy with his Sherlock schedules...Fassbender might really follows....Yes...I believe that Benedict is really 1 year older than him...The elder son of Hans Gruber's son Adolphus(Adolf) might be a computer expert and the younger is just some kind of a loyalist to him as he had been always seen with him...
Tzi Ma is no stranger to this kind,as he was really suited for a schemous Takagi brother as the following...Though he is really Chinese,he could just act as a Japanese...There might be a little problem in polishing his Jap accent...I hope he'll really complete the villainery...
Die Hardest would see John Mcclane,Lucy Mcclane,Jack Mcclane,Matt Farrell,Hans Gruber's son and his two sons,Joe Takagi's younger brother and even Holly as the vice-president who had gone missing in Tokyo...
I hope this may hit up Trebilcook's doing...to strike within a big jackpot!!!(means that my prediction is really correct..)

Darn!!Forgot one thing....I hope this would be an absolutely R rating for this!!!2h plus...
Yup in Singapore,I hope they would get along with NC16,cos I may like that too!!!

Hopefully,Trebilcook might also include one of the new characters,likely to be Matt Farrell's senior partner who is in reality Gabriel's younger brother about 40 who too hell-bent on revenge as well....
Unforgettable scenes including when he exposed himself in a vault then Farrell shot him from behind,Adolphus vs John and the katana final showdown,Adolphus' deadly shot towards Takagi,tussles with Jack and Maximus(his younger brother),how Holly had been rescued from the sarin gas chamber(being chained up),how Farrell and Lucy together with Zeus manage to stop the terminal from detonating and oh...If you could remember Karl's death in the end,I bet Hector came round to fire up before shot by whoever else but Jack Mcclane's loyal friend(junior),played by Channing Tatum!!!I really hope people will really love that!!!
Gruber's actual plans were to follow in his father's and uncle's footsteps,even with help of corrupt Takagi stealing up the funds worth 70 million yen and worldwide destruction within computers...

Possible casts would be as follows...
Bruce Willis,Bonnie Bedelia,Jai Courtney,Mary Elizabeth Winstead(with a new bob hairdo),Justin Long,Samuel L Jackson,Reginald Veljohnson,Cliff Curtis,Willem Dafoe,Benedict Cumbertbach,Michael Fassbender,Tzi Ma,Mark Wahlberg,Channing Tatum,etc......
They might be a very good casting list,with certain characters resurrecting,a new set of Grubers to finish,another Takagi to deal with and yet another new characters that might be keeping guys guessing on whatever it is...Especially the role of someone who is linked to non-Grubers too...

Sponsored Links