Live Free or Die Hard (Len Wiseman, 2007)

Message

flyonthewall2983 · #26 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:11 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:Oh boy, Kevin Smith just revealed on his blog that he just finished five days of filming his small role in the film.

This thing has disaster written all over it.

C'mon, worse actors have been in better action films. As long as Wiseman doesn't make this film look like an Evanescence video like he did his last two movies, it'll be fine by me lol.

#27 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:32 am

which will be worse, Indiana Jones 4 or Die Hard 4

flyonthewall2983 · #28 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:37 am

Live Free Or Die Hard will probably be worse. Indiana Jones 4 has more going for it, especially since Koepp has given something that has the approval of all three vital members (Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford).

DrewReiber · #29 Post by **DrewReiber** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:54 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Live Free Or Die Hard will probably be worse. Indiana Jones 4 has more going for it, especially since Koepp has given something that has the approval of all three vital members (Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford).

Ford approved Hollywood Homicide and Firewall. George Lucas approved the Star Wars prequels. Steven Spielberg simply said, "This isn't good enough for me" and demanded a rewrite with an attached deadline of about 6 months. That hardly inspires confidence, especially when they all know they're working against a clock and Ford said he would give up if they missed one more window.

Furthermore, Koepp gets the honor of being in my top 5 "Worst Hollywood Hacks Working" list, along with Akiva Goldsman, Ehren Kruger, Simon Kinberg and Brian Helgeland (yes, gimme your hell, I can take it!

). He is responsible for some of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune of seeing theatrically. The Shadow and The Lost World: Jurassic Park were the two biggest disappointments of my teenage years and at 13, I was cursing myself for not walking out of Death Becomes Her before the ending. The rest of his filmography is nearly as embarrassing, and I'll be thanking Raimi to the end of my days for kicking Koepp off the Spider-Man franchise at his first opportunity.

In my eyes, Koepp has always presented himself as the go-to guy for directors who want something in a script but are not likely to write it themselves. Like Simon Kinberg, I can imagine him bragging about taking 4am phone calls from producers and having the magical ability to just type whatever they ask for in record time. Considering the eptymology of this version of the screenplay is Jeff Nathanson -> George Lucas --> David Koepp, my expectations have hit a new low.

I really want to enjoy this film, but I see this as a worst case scenario as far as script. Now all I need to hear is Indy has a son (bring those spinoffs!) and that Kaminski is shooting it with HD cameras, so I can start the countdown to armageddon.

flyonthewall2983 · #30 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:57 am

I didn't say that it was going to be brilliant, but it'll probably wind up being a better popcorn movie than Live Free Or Die Hard.

Antoine Doinel · #31 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:59 pm

Doesn't anyone else find the idea of a 64 year old Indiana Jones laughable? I mean, what's he going to be fighting for? Social Security?

As for Die Hard, it just seems like a bunch of producers and marketing people sat down at a table to figure out how to aim the 4th installment at a teenage audience. "Hey! How about we get that guy from the Mac ads - you know the kids love those iPods - and we bring in Kevin Smith for a cameo? And you know what's all the rage now....the internet. So we'll make it about that."

Ugh. I can hear the backslapping from here.....

Fletch F. Fletch · #32 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:01 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Doesn't anyone else find the idea of a 64 year old Indiana Jones laughable? I mean, what's he going to be fighting for? Social Security?

Supposedly they are going to address Ford's age in the movie. I thought I read somewhere that it might even be set in the '50s...

Antoine Doinel · #33 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:02 pm

I didn't think they would ignore it, but still -- HE'S 64!

Highway 61 · #34 Post by **Highway 61** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:36 pm

Well, Indy 4 has more to lose if it fails, which it almost certainly will. It's just like the Star Wars prequels. Even if Indy 4 is the better film--which I think it will be, at least, the more dignified film--its guaranteed failure will tarnish the greatness that came before. On the other hand, if Die Hard 4 sucks, no one really minds because the sequels have always been a joke and a cash cow, and that's coming from someone who likes them.

DrewReiber · #35 Post by **DrewReiber** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:56 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I didn't say that it was going to be brilliant, but it'll probably wind up being a better popcorn movie than Live Free Or Die Hard.

In the context you have provided, I honestly don't know how to define the term "popcorn movie" as anything more than "movie I will see because event films are a must and allowed to lack in quality". I'm not sure when this happened, but it seems that in the last few years I come across this phrase (in an excuse-like context) more and more.

Why are we using terminology like this to explain away our right to expect more effort put toward filmmaking, regardless of intention (intelligent, exploitational, blockbuster, etc.)? Is it really that inappropriate to expect that the movies we pay for are actually great or "brilliant"? Or are films really so poor on average, for so long, that we need words that will make us feel better about getting scammed once we walk out of the theater?

Poncho Punch · #36 Post by **Poncho Punch** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:24 pm

DrewReiber wrote:Why are we using terminology like this to explain away our right to expect more effort put toward filmmaking, regardless of intention (intelligent, exploitational, blockbuster, etc.)? Is it really that inappropriate to expect that the movies we pay for are actually great or "brilliant"? Or are films really so poor on average, for so long, that we need words that will make us feel better about getting scammed once we walk out of the theater?

Is it appropriate to expect that only "brilliant" films should be released to the public? Take a look at what tops the bestselling book lists, and thus is made most available to the public: airport novels. We complain about all these formulaic films, but look at John Grisham, Clive Cussler, Ellis Peters, etc. Their very fame and fortune is built upon the fact that they adhere to a formula. People eat that shit up, so why should we expect anything different from film?

DrewReiber · #37 Post by **DrewReiber** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:11 am

Poncho Punch wrote:Is it appropriate to expect that only "brilliant" films should be released to the public? Take a look at what tops the bestselling book lists, and thus is made most available to the public: airport novels. We complain about all these formulaic films, but look at John Grisham, Clive Cussler, Ellis Peters, etc. Their very fame and fortune is built upon the fact that they adhere to a formula. People eat that shit up, so why should we expect anything different from film?

Who said anything about formula being the problem? Your argument is that mediocrity is valid as entertainment simply because it exists. If the status quo in quality is pitiful or the market share seems to drift (at any point) towards the uninspired or routine, then it shouldn't be questioned because it's there and people must be buying it... right? Well, I've never heard a sillier and illogical point, especially in books or film.

After all, the publishing market has been apocalyptic for a while now and over the last few years, the box office has seen 20+ year record lows. Yes, there are movies in the theater and some people see them, but the numbers show a progressively dwindling interest. The problem is that there is an illusion of power as mediocre films are seen ruling the box office at #1, yet comparatively they are not performing anywhere near the standards established by better received products in *the same genre/formula*.

It's like comic books. You can find that some of the same books were #1 over 10 years ago, but then there's a big difference between sales in the millions and now just reaching a couple hundred thousand. They just used their audience and distributors up until they ruined their credibility with almost everyone and now scrape by based on bookstores and licensing. Any industry that does not exist as a necessity for basic living will be sustained or collapse at the behest of consumer interest, which will always be tied to the quality of reward it offers in exchange for monetary sums.

Maybe if studios and filmmakers simply raised their efforts, then maybe audiences might eat more "shit" up. Instead of this ever widening gap of profit between domestic theatrical revenue and all other markets... maybe there might be considerable industry growth due to consumer confidence? But by your rationale, and that of mass produced entertainment at the moment blaming the increasing problems on technology, the argument is that there's no reason to for entertainers to try harder or even expect them to, because the material at hand has lowered the bar so far and yet remain the large market share. Well, yeah, because the majority of the product isn't very good at all. Through pure repetition and quanitity, they have convinced you of a standard that doesn't actually perform, but rather creates an air of stability.

People (maybe not Flyonthewall) just use these nonsensical mantras like "don't think and enjoy a popcorn flick" because it helps to assuage the insecurity that is building because they are unwilling to accept they have the responsibility to ask for something better. Die Hard and Indiana Jones are no different, as they still began as features that raised their respective genres to certain heights (even creating new molds). These latest sequels are being ushered into existence moreso out of desperation than creativity, and these generalizations about "popcorn" or "shit" are just the easy way out of having to look at what's happening at the development or production level and see the truth for what it is.

Trying to escape that insight, which is the very topic of discussion here, through nonsensical presumptions about formula criticism or ambigious statements about publishing does not change anything. A well made film, whether some Jose Mojica Marins exploitation film, a David Lean epic, a CGI-laden Raimi Spider-Man sequel, or a Werner Herzog documentary... they all carry the mark of a filmmaker who believes in what he's doing and wishes to empart something beneficial to his/her audience. Whether you liked it, or not, that much is present and it's really not that much to ask for. And if we ask for it, then we only stand to benefit. That's exactly how Batman Begins came about, despite the initial prejudice and dismissive attitude toward the medium in mainstream Hollywood even *after* a collosal creative flop in the same series.

Pure entertainment, critical analysis, thought provoking insight into culture or whatever, the specific genre of a work does not excuse a bunch of people from just shoving a project through the development/production process without care because they need money and wish to decieve its consumer base through marketing and brand label familiarity. And this ridiculous "popcorn" statement is rarely invoked unless it's part of an insecure response to someone who might be threatening their ability to passively enjoy the manipulative advertising and hype in anticipation of a product that is unlikely to be delivered.

I'm sorry, but the "popcorn" usage really sucks as it's just self-delusion designed to sustain the feel-good power of the blockbuster marketing formula that has been slowly losing it's potency since being hijacked from Roger Corman by the majors in the mid 70's. The train is coming to it's stop and these little word games are not going to change anything. And if you still really buy into this fantasy, be sure to tell it to the people at MGM, Miramax, Dreamworks and Walt Disney Animation who all lost their jobs over the past few years. I'm sure they would love to hear your theories about supply and demand in the currently balanced marketplace.

Antoine Doinel · #38 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:02 am

DrewReiber wrote:
Poncho Punch wrote:Is it appropriate to expect that only "brilliant" films should be released to the public? Take a look at what tops the bestselling book lists, and thus is made most available to the public: airport novels. We complain about all these formulaic films, but look at John Grisham, Clive Cussler, Ellis Peters, etc. Their very fame and fortune is built upon the fact that they adhere to a formula. People eat that shit up, so why should we expect anything different from film?
After all, the publishing market has been apocalyptic for a while now and over the last few years, the box office has seen 20+ year record lows.

Uh, Fox just announced they had their best theatrical year EVER in 2006, raking in $3.56 billion worldwide.

That said, yes, some studios are seeing a drop in profits. But it's not just a matter of their inability to grasp new technology (definitely a problem), or shit poor movies (which have always been around). There are a mix of factors keeping people away. Ticket prices, poor projection, theater experiences that ruined by talking etc etc, studios continuing to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into producing movies that barely break even (Superman Returns).

I don't think movie audiences are as intelligent or as stupid as we like to think they are. Some people go to the movies to escape or see art or both and there will always be movies that try and cater to everybody. It doesn't mark the the apocalypse of the industry, but a business trying to rake in as many customers as possible.

And at the end of the day, that's what the film industry is, a business. Sadly, art will always come second and if you want to see something that will change your soul, it will rarely be down at the local multiplex.

#39 Post by **cdnchris** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:22 pm

Whatever the case may be, it doesn't change the fact that this movie will more than likely be a piece of excrement (based on reading about the production mind you) no matter how you look at it. I'm actually heart broken because, yeah, I've enjoyed all the Die Hard films quite a bit (even the last one which really required suspension of disbelief.) This one doesn't even sound like a Die Hard movie. Internet terrorists? A kid? Kevin Smith? Phhhhttttttttt.

Antoine Doinel · #40 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:58 am

Here's the new trailer.

Cinesimilitude · #41 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:21 pm

I love it. and they even pulled out the "yippee ki yay, motherf-".

I'm excited to see this.

#42 Post by **domino harvey** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:44 pm

I didn't even realize this came out today

tavernier · #43 Post by **tavernier** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:32 pm

Jesus, I've seen so much of Bruce's shiny happy bald head recently that I assumed this came out weeks ago.

Barmy · #44 Post by **Barmy** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:58 pm

Getting very good reviews. I probably won't see it, however. The trailer was lame. I'm saving my threequel $$$ for Rush Hour 3.

DrewReiber · #45 Post by **DrewReiber** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:09 pm

Are you serious? I mean, about Rush Hour 3?

tavernier · #46 Post by **tavernier** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:29 pm

DrewReiber wrote:Are you serious? I mean, about Rush Hour 3?

Never take Barmy seriously. Please.

margot · #47 Post by **margot** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:15 am

I'm gonna see this expecting a fun action movie that is nothing like the Die Hard franchise, but I have a feeling I'm gonna be disappointed.

malcolm1980 · #48 Post by **malcolm1980** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:27 am

DrewReiber wrote: at 13, I was cursing myself for not walking out of Death Becomes Her before the ending.

I liked Death Becomes Her. I think it's one of Robert Zemeckis' underrated films.

*runs away*

patrick · #49 Post by **patrick** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:30 am

I still can't decide if I'm going to see this in the theater or wait for the DVD yet. Obviously a movie like this should probably be seen in a theater, but since it was supposedly shot as an R, I'm sure there will be some sort of uncut DVD.

I just hope it can match The Marine, which was the surprise of the year for me in the dumb action movie department.

malcolm1980 · #50 Post by **malcolm1980** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:33 am

Can you believe I've never seen the original Die Hard all the way through? I'm skipping this one.