Talk:Die Hard

Did McLain murder Ellis?

It isn't clear when Ellis is shot whether McLain intentionally tricks Hans into thinking McLain *does* care about Ellis ("Ellis, you have to tell them you don't know me or they'll kill you!") and then breathes a visible sigh of relief when Ellis is killed without revealing Holly's identity. Did McLain do everything he could to save Ellis, and was lucky to keep Holly's identity secret, or did he pause, think of the best words to say to get Ellis shot, and then have his plan work out in Ellis's death?

Please sign your edits for clarity in discussion. I'd suggest that the movie is simple enough to imply the first interpretation. Others, feel free to update the plot section if there's no strong argument against. 69.71.237.83 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fires on Powell?

I don't think John McClane actually shot at Sergeant Powell's car. I think he threw the body on it, and then the terrorists in the building (who had been watching Powell check out the building) opened fire on him to try and prevent him from radioing for more help.

You're right, he just throws the body, he doesn't fire on him. Bonus Onus 03:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Really? I always thought he shot at the car...he is shown holding a machine gun shouting "Welcome to the party, pal!" --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 08:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you look closely it's a different weapon firing, a machinegun, probably a SAW. Scott197827 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The weapon that fires on Powell looks like an M60E3, which is the same as used by the Helicopter Gunner later on, when the FBI shoot at McClane on the rooftop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rustone (talk • contribs)

In the original screenplay (which is pretty damned close to the final film, minus a line or two) it clearly states that it is a barrage of machine gun fire from Alexander on the third floor. Also, you can see clearly on the DVD that the gun fire is coming from a much lower floor than John Mac's.Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The real giveaway is this: we see McLane say "Welcome to the party pal" and he is clearly not shooting his gun. Meanwhile you can clearly hear that whoever was shooting at Powell hasn't stopped. So McLane is the one armed guy in the building that couldn't possibly be shooting up the police car.

Picture

It would be nice to have a picture on this page, like a movie poster. anyone know how to get one that isnt copyrighted? they have them for other movies. --Bonus Onus 03:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Music

Who is the band and what is the title of the music that played in the limo when Argyle and John were talking about Christmas music? (before they enter the Nakatomi Tower)

"Christmas in Hollis" by Run DMC -- Baby fenris 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Die Hard 4

Did the 4th movie will have McClane's daughter in it? The last I heard it was going to be his son.

I made a small change in the article

The article had claimed that the movie was true to the book. I deleted this because in the book it was the hero's daughter not wife who was held hostage & in the end she died. These seem like major changes to me. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

this Isn't Very encyclopedic

"Plus, the "German" spoken in the english version is complete and utter gibberish."--69.113.106.92 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that much gibberish - in fact, the German grammatical and syntactical deconstruction makes no sense at all.

Grueber does not say Schiess den Fenster, he says Schiess' dem Fenster - Fenster is a feminine accusative, not a "neutral", which I can only suppose is meant to translate the English grammatical term neuter.

Nuttyskin 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Both is wrong and doesn't make sense! Right is: "Schieß auf die Fenster!", or "Zerschieß die Fenster!". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.255.23.56 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Which is probably why Karl looks at him confused! :) (Which of course gives Hans an excuse to say it in English for the audience!)Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fenster is neuter. Go read a German dictionary. Or see: http://www.iee.et.tu-dresden.de/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/wernerr/search.sh?string=window&nocase=on&hits=50 HagermanBot is still right, because Fenster is both singular and plural. One would think movie studios would keep someone on staff just for throw away lines like this. 24.47.23.189 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are all wrong. 'Fenster' has a neuter article, as in "das Fenster". The phrase he says has 'Glass' as the direct object, and the articles change from "der, die, das, die" to "dem, der, dem, den". He is saying "Shoot the glass" which is correct as "Scheiss dem Fenster"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.96.162 (talk) 21:21, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. "the" as direct object translates to "den, die, das; die" and so it would at least be "das" (the window) or "die" (the windows) if any. However, "to shoot" with a direct object, meaning to destroy something, translates as "zerschießen". So "Zerschieß das/die Fenster". It is, however, quite more common to use the simple worde "schießen", which does not have a direct object, with a directional adverbial, and so a German would normally say "Schieß auf das/die Fenster". --84.154.83.151 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, you're making another joke with your misspelling "Scheiss dem Fenster". Though this article is incorrect to, it would be "das Scheiß-Fenster" (the f*etc. window). --84.154.83.151 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation ?

Should'nt there be a disambiguation page for die hard (with lower-case? johan_h 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is taken care of by the first line of this article. Val42 00:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

German language

As far as I know as a native speaker of German "Fenster" is "neutral" to quote the term, that was used in the main article. "Das Fenster", not "Die Fenster", exept you are referring to the plural of "Fenster" (windows), which is "Die Fenster". Actually I never listened that close, whether Rickman says "dem Fenster" or "den Fenster", however, both expressions make no sense and are ungrammatical, so what's the big deal. On the other hand not all German expressions in the movie are wrong.

There german speaking is ridiculous! The pronunciation is harder than the real german and the accent sound like a mix of native english speakers and germans from south-germany. Especially the 'r' is very english. You don't here any complete sentence, only cusses. They wanted to have the german stereotype. The hard and bad guy. I know it, because I am german. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.39.133 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"There german speaking is ridiculous!" YES! 84.62.133.101 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, his remark really is funny. but he still is right, you know. some sentences are acceptable, while others are just ridiculously wrong.the same is true for the actors' pronounciation. i'd suggest to add a short note to the article about the various mistakes in grammar, diction and pronunciation. btw: it baffles me every time over, that multi million dollar movie projects seem unable to hire a single native speaker to check the script and train the actors in the correct pronunciation (given the actors are not native speakers) - Yamok 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamok (talk • contribs)

Parodies

Removed a reference between National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon and Die Hard With A Vengence that is entirely coincidental - Loaded Weapon (1993) was released 2 years before other film (1995) so it cannot be a deliberate reference to it. If someone wants to re-instate it as a ironic twist of fate that would seem a possiblility, but not one I think is needed. RoyBatty42 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you were correct to remove this. I have tried to cut down some of the trivia, per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style#Trivia. There are a couple of interesting facts in there that could be moved to a more appropriate section, such as 'production'. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bill Clay clue

From the Trivia section, this segment is in error:

"In the scene where McClane realizes that the man he has met on the roof, Bill Clay, is actually Hans, the actual reason he's able to tell is because he saw 'Bill' looking at his watch, which is the same special expensive watch as the terrorist McClane killed had, and he saw others wearing while he was standing above them in the elevator, but this information was dropped from the film. In the shown version, McClane glances at the workboard behind Hans and sees the name W. Clay, implying he's sussed out that the man is lying and is Hans."

The name McClane sees on the workboard is Wm. Clay, but Wm. is an abbreviation for William, commonly shortened to "Bill". When McClane sees the name, it only helps to confirm Gruber's story; the film implies that Gruber saw the same workboard and picked up the name from there. What may have been the clue that Gruber was lying was the way he held his cigarette. McClane held his cigarette in a V between two fingers, while Gruber held his between the thumb and his fingers. The latter is less common in the US, which could have been a clue to the observant McClane that "Bill Clay" was European, not American as he pretended.

Lee Gaiteri 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the intended clue (the watch) was cut from the film, anything else is likely to be supposition, but I've always read it as, McClane was suspicious but inclined to give "Clay" the benefit of the doubt - especially when he confirms the name on the board. However without absolute proof he isn't likely to hand *anyone* a real loaded gun and so keeps his options open. When Gruber thinks he has the drop on McClane, he gives himself away, but we then learn that the gun McClane gave him wasn't loaded.

Tomsalinsky 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Also, where did the idea that his watch was supposed to give it away come from? The watch we see in the elevator doesn't look especially expensive to me, and isn't he wearing it before he kills Karl's brother, anyway? I've always wanted to know how Hans knew there was an employee called Bill Clay! I've deleted the above post about the watch until something better can be added.Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also when Maclane offered him a Cigarette, Gruber just took one without saying anything. They were the same cigarettes that Maclane stole from one of the other terrorists - European cigarettes. An American would have been slightly suprised or mentioned "gee these are different" but Gruber just took one without batting an eyelid.--Mutley 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Hans Gruber a German?

Re-watching the Original Die Hard in preparation for the fourth film, it occured to me the the original seems to imply the Hans, while posing as a German (who then poses as an American) may not actually be German. The key scene being after Hans is revealed to not to be William Clay to McClain and a fire-fight ensues as the henchmen rush in. Hans tries to give instructions in German ("Shoot the glass!"), but when Karl does not understand them, he needs to reitterate them in English. If truly German, he would speak the instructions more slowly and loudly in German; but rather he spoke in English. 66.109.248.114 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think viewers are missing the point about Karl's confused look. It isn't that Hans didn't enunciate the instructions correctly; the confusion is that the instructions seem odd to give in the middle of a fire-fight. The second command (given in english so the viewer would understand the command) was directed as more of an order from the "higher-ranking" thief, if there is such a rank-structure. Also, the third film confirms he is, in fact, german. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.96.162 (talk) 21:35, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Trivia point

I can't remember this 100% (and I don't have ready access to the flick), but I'm almost certain the football game the front desk guard is watching is a USC-Notre Dame game. Can anyone with the movie confirm? --Bobak 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that I had $50 bet on those assholes. --EEMeltonIV

I was just told that USHER RAYMONDS is the limousine driver in the first part of the movie. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bairuz (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenwriter link redirect

Jeb Stuart redirects to J.E.B. Stuart. I'm fairly certain J.E.B. Stuart didn't write Die Hard while fighting in the Battle of Antietam. What can we do about this? There's a "see also" for Jeb Stuart Magruder, but I don't think that's the same guy. Amphy 04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the link to point to (nonexistent page) Jeb_Butler_(screenwriter) Rojomoke (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorists?

In the cast section several characters are marked with the job "terrorist". Isn't the point of the plot that the gunmen taking hostages are in reality just robbers and not terrorists as they portray themselves? The political demands are after all just part of a ploy to take attention away from the robbery.

60.240.143.88 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious whether that distinction will even exist in a few more years. QuantumG (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that in the credits, you won't wonder who they're talking about when they mention the Terrorists, since they're referred to as such many times in the film (even if their motives turn out to be different.) If you see "crazed man" in some credits, you wouldn't argue that technically he was probably just mentally ill -- it just helps you identify which actor they're talking about. 69.71.237.83 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cast "table"

While it is somewhat interesting to lay out the connection between the characters in the film, the "table" of the film's cast is hardly a valuable addition to the article. The "kidnapped" column is totally superfluous as only one person is marked and it could be argued that separating one hostage from the others is hardly "kidnapping." As far as mapping out who killed who (and how), it doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopedic. I think the whole thing should be scrapped, save for the basic info (character - actor). --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

lots of Spoilers

I don't know what are the current policy about spoilers, but this article has a lot of it. Shouldn't there be a warning somewhere in the beginning of the article? -- Daniel3ub (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yippee Kai Yay motherfucker

Where did they come up with that line? 70.90.174.173 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't know but it sure is funny!!! --Charmed and Dangerous, Danielle (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Die Hard 5???

I read an article about Fox was talking about maybe making a Die Hard 5. It is not for sure, but they are talking. Oh and Bruce Willis is in favor of another one. --Charmed and Dangerous, Danielle (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No I doubt Bruce Willis is willing to do a Die Hard 5. He is too old for that now. Can you give a link to the website that did the article? Kylee20051 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nudity in Trailer?

I was a little shocked to see the nude pinup girl image that McClane passes a few times appear in Trailer A, which is on the second DVD of the 2 disc release. Did this actually play in theaters as we see on the DVD? And also, how were those scenes edited for TV? Did they let it slip there as well?

In a film which features headshots, gun fights, villains being thrown off buildings and copious amounts of swearing you are worried about a barely seen girly calendar on the wall? In answer to your question, yes, it did for some bizarre, unknown, completely unresearable reason slipped through the stringent TV censorship net and made it to the worlds TV screens. Mmm commentaries (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I wasn't "worried" (I'm of the opinion that Die Hard could have used more gratuitous nudity!), but it is a bit odd that the image of a naked woman was shown in a green band trailer and on TV uncensored. It's another example of content slipping through and now that you've confirmed it, should the article make mention of this? And has the Trailer A with the shot been featured on other DVD's that shouldn't contain nudity? (This also reminds me of Brad Pitt's pornography covered shirt in the trailers and TV spots for Fight Club, albeit with more visibility.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.60 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Girl in Window

Any particular plot point of this scene played by Michele Laybourn? Some have suggested that either something was cut from the film or it was designed to frustrate John McClane even more due to not being able to make phone calls after the lines were cut. Any other clues out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.237.59 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This has long confused me, too. Quite early on during the terrorist takeover McClane stops to ponder his predicament, and gazes out of a window; there's a brief shot of a lady in a neighbouring building, played by Michele Laybourn, who is credited as "Girl in Window", although she's unrecognisable and has no lines. The script linked in the article here includes it as scene 51-A, and suggests that it was originally going to be slightly ruder - perhaps along the lines of the contortionist scene in Blue Thunder - but as it stands it's an odd moment that comes and goes. It seems to be intended to highlight McClane's communication difficulties into contrast, but it's odd that they went to the trouble of crediting the actress involved. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading through this page and got intrigued by this too. That link to the script above doesn't seem to work any more, but this one does, but in case that doesn't work in the future I'll copy and paste the relevant scene:

       A high-rise apartment building a half-block away sparkles with
       lights.  McClane stares at a PRETTY GIRL in her bedroom.  She's
       wearing drop dead underwear right out of the Victoria's Secret
       catalog.  As we watch, she flops down on her bed, and with
       one long leg in the air, effortlessly dials
       a call on her high-tech phone.  It seems so easy.

If you read that last bit it almost sounds like an advertisement: "...effortlessly dials a call on her high-tech phone. It seems so easy." Perhaps it was originally going to be product placement for something, but the deal didn't go through? A make of cordless phone or something? I suppose the purpose of the scene is to show that it's only the phones in McClane's building that don't work, that there's not some larger outage. To me the script seems to suggest it was originally going to be something more, but maybe that's just the way the guy writes. He could have just put "McClane stares at girl in nearby building who's using phone while lying on bed in her underwear", but there's more direction than that. Why is it a "high-tech" phone, for example? It seems very specific for what is such a short and simple scene. But maybe I'm reading too much into it. 84.9.165.232 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Goofs" Section

For an encyclopedic article, do we really need a "Goofs" section? If the content of the section is informative, could we at least refer to the section as something a bit more encyclopedic than "Goofs". I do tend to appreciate movie-articles that contain a "Scientific Inaccuracies", but much of the content presented in the aforementioned section is more readily observable by the casual viewer. Thoughts? Comments? —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. It's WP:NOR to use the movie as a sole source and claim that these things are goofs. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Family Matters Spin-Off

I'd always heard that the show "Family Matters" is sort of a spin-off of this film as it features Al's character playing exactly the same character he did in the film, including his profession. Nothing is mentioned about this in the article (and perhaps it's the stuff of urban legends. Any thoughts? 206.24.49.1 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

one where did you hear that? and two that is no way anywhere near true at all--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Godunov, Gleason and Atherton

Godunov is pretty much a no brainer. His name is on the poster (Veljohnson's isn't BTW). Atherton and Gleason have substantial screen time. Atherton is in it from virtually the beginning and the only time that Powell is seen without Robinson next to him is the five minutes until the body lands on his car. Both are major characters who drive the plot forward. {Quentin X (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Which actors are a "no brainer" is highly subjective, depending on the viewer. I don't really care enough about this to argue with another editor on a power trip so I will not revert right now. Just leave these bit players in with headliner Bruce Willis. HM211980 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

VelJohnson is the only one of the four in question who fits the "star" label. To say Atherton, Gleason, or Godunov "star" in this movie is laughable. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit as this argument has no basis in fact. If you would care to discuss the facts as placed above, I would be happy to answer. (Quentin X (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

While deciding which actors to call the "stars" of the movie is essentially subjective, I agree with HM and Crotchety Old Man on this. Andrea Parton (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% that it is completely subjective. Perhaps the issue could be resolved with some third party sources saying that such-and-such actor "stars" in the movie. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if we use the criteria of the above, how about we word it as something like "stars Willis and Rickman and features Bedelia, Godunov, Veljohnson, Atherton and (yes) Gleason", or just have Willis and Rickman and leave out the supporting players. Would this satisfy all parties? (Quentin X (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

As no one has come back on this I'm going to change it to just Willis and Rickman as they are the two main protagonists. Hopefully this will end the disagreement. (Quentin X (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Reginald and Willis would be the two main protagonists and not Rickman.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans Gruber -- Our Man Flint link

Has anyone discussed the link to Our Man Flint that 1960s James Bond Spoof and the bad guy named Hans Gruber that was German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silik0nJesus (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian Terrorists In German Dub

I couldn't help but notice the mention of two of the terrorist characters being "made Italian" in the German dub of the movie. Even in the original English version definitely at least the character of Marco was intended as an Italian, if you turn on the subtitles when he speaks it reads "Speaking Italian" as opposed to "Speaking German". Did the German dub actually change other characters or was just this a mistake on the original editors part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.101.228 (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Side Bet

Does anyone know what the denomination of the bill is that Karl pays Theo in the beginning of the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.59.23 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems rather trivial to me...not sure how this info would improve the article? Doniago (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Or if you're actuaally asking this question (as curiosity) then perhaps you could try the films imdb page. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot section

After one false start, I had reduced the plot to remove the names of all of Gruber's men involved as it made the plot increasingly complex and avoided some of the broader plot concepts (like the fact that McClane attempts to mask his identity and how that leads to Holly's identity being discovered). That change has been reverted.

I can understand the aspect about Karl, and would reinsert that pointing that Karl seeks vengence for McClane killing his brother early in the film, but outside of Theo, that's the only real name needed for any of Gruber's men to make the plot make sense. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hiding his identity under an alias didn't matter, she was there under the name Gennaro, he only knew who she was because he noticed her looking at her kids on the TV report about McClane and recognized the kid on the screen and in all her photos. It's a minor plot point that doesn't go anywhere, it may be McClane's intention but it doesn't serve anything. I mean he knows his name 1h20m into the film, it doesn't change anything for 40 minutes until the news report. So hiding his identity or not didn't affect anything.

Using the gangs names means you don't have to keep saying things like "one of Gruber's men, two of Gruber's men, some of Gruber's men", or saying "Gruber's men are killed" which then raises the question why he has more men later, using many words where 1 will do. Like actor names, I don't count names towards a word count since they're a necessary element, that said the plot is now 674 words and covers the major plot elements. I really don't think the names harm it at all and maybe make up 20-25 words in the total plot if you do actually count them against the word count limit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the size that was the problem. It is that by trying to capture the fate of every of the mooks that Gruber brings (outside of Karl, Tony, and Theo) spends too much time on specific scenes instead of capturing the larger essence of the film. That's what's cautioned against at WP:WAF. We don't need to say "McClane killed X, Y, and Z here" or even "McClane killed three men here", just that he started off outnumbers and systematically eliminates the numbers until the very end. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well reading your version I don't see what it adds that the current doesn't beyond the alias thing which I explained above. Further to that, this " McClane encounters Gruber, passing himself off as one of the escaped hostages, and reveals his real name to Gruber." seems like it is meant to be a revelation. But Gruber already knows his name because of Ellis by this point, knowing his name doesn't do anything and so the emphasis on him using an alias doesn't add anything. I put in a mention of Tony being Karl's brother. Unless I'm missing something the plots cover the exact same elements now except the current one offers more clarity on certain things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)