AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I actually kinda figured that everyone would've insulted me for throwing it out there. lol. Surprised one or two of you like the movies too. They're my favorite action movie franchise by far. I agree that they've declined since the original, but honestly, what movie franchise doesn't aside from the ones who've had hype/big brand name recognition beforehand? Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc. were all popular before their movies came out so naturally they stood the test of time compared to the original. You'd be hard pressed to think of a few franchises that don't have hiccups/slips in quality after a sequel or two.

For what Live Free or Die Hard was I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. I wasn't looking for anything "real" or "mind bending". I just wanted a solid action movie in the style of old 80s action movies. But I do agree that I hope this next one will return John to more of a "regular guy not looking for it but ending up in a huge evil scheme and is the only one willing to stop it" role.

No, the difference between Die Hard and Lord of The Rings and such is that the latter was intended to have a sequel from the start, when with the former they just decide to stick on a sequel when they see the original selling well and becoming popular.

My comparison was that previously established and recognized properties have the better sequels because they remained consistently good throughout their franchise/knew where they were going ahead of time whereas most movie franchises that weren't previously established in another medium usually, if not most of the time, decline in quality. So to say "the sequel sucks so the whole franchise sucks" always really bugs me. And, you'd be surprised by the amount of movies that get made that are intended to be the start of franchises that end up either only producing the first movie and fail for various reasons or get a sequel but are "telephoned" to the point where it isn't even the same intended sequel to the original. What we end up with is a mash-up of various studio executive's ideas and visions for what the sequel is and a filming crew that tries to put their own spin on it so you get 9 different movies in one sequel which is why sequels usually fail.

Or, at least, that's what I see from the movie industry. Everyone has their own interpretations as to why sequels are terrible. I also think we just need better writers in Hollywood.

What I'm saying is, is that there's a difference between a sequel that's made because they're trying to wring more cheddar out of a franchise, or one that's made because there was too much stuff to put in one movie.

Fair enough. But even still, for what most movie sequels are, some are still pretty good even if the quality declined. Although there are some that just became jokes (Friday The 13th sequels, anyone?).

Die Hard is high up there in my top 5 favorite movies.

"Glass? Who gives a shit about glass?!"

And then Live Free or Die Hard

"LOL HACKERS CAN OBVIOUSLY KILL YOU IF YOU PRESS ONE FREAKING BUTTON ON YOUR STANDARD GENERIC KEYBOARD, IT'S NOT LIKE THAT'S ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE OR SOMETHING WITHOUT BEING CAUGHT, AND THEY CAN ALSO CREATE A PHOTOREALISTIC VIDEO OF THE WHITE HOUSE BLOWING UP THAT'S SO CONVINCING THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY JUST HAPPENS TO GO INTO MASS PANIC MODE"

NDividedByZero wrote:And then Live Free or Die Hard

"LOL HACKERS CAN OBVIOUSLY KILL YOU IF YOU PRESS ONE FREAKING BUTTON ON YOUR STANDARD GENERIC KEYBOARD,

The main villain was the original architect of the security system/firewalls. He knew every inch around the code and even tweaked it before he left the job. He said so himself. It's not that hard to believe that the tweak he made was a small window he could jump through to take advantage of at a future date.

IT'S NOT LIKE THAT'S ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE OR SOMETHING WITHOUT BEING CAUGHT,

How so? He was the one who coded it. It was his creation alone. Chances are he built it and as soon as he was done he got dropped meaning he didn't show anybody else around it that well. Even the government officials made note that he was the one who wrote the code and that nobody else knew their way around it, they were just using it until they figured something else out.

AND THEY CAN ALSO CREATE A PHOTOREALISTIC VIDEO OF THE WHITE HOUSE BLOWING UP THAT'S SO CONVINCING THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY JUST HAPPENS TO GO INTO MASS PANIC MODE"

Again, I don't see a real big problem with this. A lot of normal people nowadays can use green screens and various programs to make things look amazing. Not that hard to believe, really.

Just...no. You don't understand computers either, much less a government network.

Just let Timothy Olyphant and his magic computers and terrible acting be.

Die Hard with a Vengeance was the best because goddamn Jeremy Irons.

Madican wrote:Just...no. You don't understand computers either, much less a government network.

And yet you're providing no evidence to your case aside from "You don't know anything." I, at the very least, gave you the explanation which they gave from the film. And as far as the explanation goes, for a freaking action movie, it's as close to a logical explanation you're going to get.

Because I'm not going to waste time pointing out every little detail you have wrong. You don't understand how computers work because you actually think a single backdoor would allow someone to do everything the villain did.

And no, you don't get to excuse the stupidity just because it's an action movie. That's not a ticket for a movie to whatever the hell it wants logic be damned.

I would honestly hate watching anything with you then. No offense. lol.

Heh, my friends sometimes hate me for pointing out idiocy in movies aswell.