How did Die Hard change between

instalments?A look at Die Hard 1-3 comparing their tones and settings of the films as part of the action

genre.Will contain references to A Good Day to Die

Hard

References and BibliographyResearch Sources:• WikipediaUsed for statistics and reception information. This includes box office, cast, release dates and general knowledge. Helped to find out information about critics and interview information.• IMDBUsed for facts about film development and reception information, such as Metacritic and ranking. Allowed me to point out two trivia points about Die Hard 1.Videos:• Half in The Bag Episode 47: A Good Day To Die Hard - 6:50Used the discussion of the franchise as a whole, from the perspectives of the two reviewers (Mike and Jay). Despite the comical nature of the Half in The Bag show, there is critical discussion of the films mixed into their reviews. This discussion also talks about how the most recent instalment moves away from the tone of the original Die Hard.• Die Hard with a Vengeance Alternate EndingUsed to show the original vision of the Die Hard 3 director of a broken and rouge John McClane. This was much more darker and immoral, which might be because the series should have ended here. John corners Simon in a café with a LAW rocket launcher and gives him his comeuppance with a game of riddles. This ending was removed after it conflicted with the comical tone of Die Hard 3.Unused Content:• Die Hard with a Vengeance “Johnny Comes Marching Home” soundtrackWas going to be played without footage, to show off how effective it was as a non-diegetic piece. Was cut due to lack of time and it was not necessary.• Die Hard Movie ScenesI was planning to put the scenes for each film in the presentation, via media files. The problem arose that it’s illegal to take content directly from a DVD, even if for education purposes. Also, there was a time constraint.• Theatrical TrailersThere are multiple Die Hard trailers, that market the films for audiences around the world. I planned to show some of them, but if given time I might still be able to. There was a lack of time and also it would make the presentation too long as it is.

A look at Die Hard 1In 1988, Die Hard was first shown in cinemas. The movie, starring Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman, was marketed as an action film about a cop versus twelve terrorists. It received generally positive praise from critics and earned approximately $7.1 million at general release. The concept is John is at the wrong place at the wrong time.Die Hard used the setting of Nakatomi Tower (20th Century Fox Headquarters at the time) with fictional character John McClane, a New York cop, as the protagonist. The film cost $28 million, through pyrotechnics, props, actors, special blank prop bullets and vehicles. It currently stands at 70 on Metacritic and 120th top film on IMDB.

Sequence Analysis: Hans Gruber EntranceThis scene sequence starts at 17:00 and ends at 25:30The introduction to Hans Gruber and his crew is a fairly long one, as it covers the infiltration of the building. This sequence uses a constant, non-diegetic, background track to keep the tone and pacing of this sequence moving. This type of sequence is in every Die Hard which will be covered, as well as action films in general.The start of the sequence is Theo (the hacker) and Karl clearing the lobby. This takes 16 seconds and is choreographed effectively to emphasize Theo as a light-hearted character, whilst contrasting with the cold and methodical Karl. The vault kick shot is a well done use of camera angle and movement to keep the pace and tension of the scene. This then leads onto the first sight of Hans Gruber and his full crew. The hallway shot establishes Hans as the leader and the size of his crew. This particular type of shot/formation is popular in action films for establishing protagonists/antagonists. The scene with Bruder, Karl and the telephone line creates some tension, whilst also making Karl a more reckless character.The next location is the 30th floor, with Hans and his crew preparing in the elevator. The guns used by Han’s crew are MP5s, German submachineguns, were commonly used in action films in the 80s. The 30th floor is then swept by Han’s crew, who fail to spot McClane escaping to the fire stairs. McClane is shown wearing no shoes and equipped only with his Beretta, making him vulnerable and avoiding confrontation. This creates tension and sympathy for John, who spends most of the film sneaking around Nakatomi. We then get the first dialogue from Hans, who keeps a formal yet ruthless tone whilst addressing the hostages. He starts by establishing terrorist intent, but then proceeds to single out Mr Takagi. This scene in particular makes use of Alan Rickman’s demeanour and acting to create a ruthless villain. He paces around the hostages, listing off Takagi’s history ending, when Takagi speaks up, that he is a father of 5 children. What this scene does that makes it stand out is make the audience invested in Hans as an antagonist.This sequence is a great example of how Die Hard 1 sets up its antagonist and his crew, compared to other action films. The characters and their personalities are established at a well done pace and tension is handled well. There is a lack of development of John McClane, but this is handled throughout the movie well enough.

Sequence Analysis: John meets HansThis scene sequence starts at 01:27:10 and ends at 01:31:49The sequence starts when Hans jumps down. He is without his gun, his men and he has a gun pointed at him by McClane. In this scene, John is confident and cocky, in contrast to the start of the film where he was out matched and was calling for help. Grubber pretends to be a hostage, since he knows McClane wouldn’t shoot a man begging for his life. This works on the basis that John has never seen Hans. (As a side note, this scene was unrehearsed for extra effect http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/trivia?item=tr0792209) The scene then uses non-diegetic SFX effectively to highlight Hans’ desire to kill McClane. The use of camera angle also makes effective use of the gun prop, by making it something just out of reach, and the gun being pointed at Hans, because it shows him as pathetic and at his weakest.Ignoring the FBI scene, the next scene has John offering Hans a cigarette. This works as down time between the hero and the villain, allowing character development of Hans. We then see Hans lie to John’s face, but John sees through it. Hans is handed the Beretta, without ammo, in order to create tension. This scene works because the audience has no knowledge of the lack of ammo, but we know that Hans shoots hostages. The way the McClane approaches Hans works on the audience’s tension until Hans tries to fire. The camera angle also focuses on Bruce Willis’ acting and facial expressions, which are well done and creates an enjoyable personality in this sequence. The gun clicking is a great way to finish this sequence because it makes Hans a more realistic villain, who believes it just to be a malfunction. The ending dialogue helps to establish a popular aspect of Die Hard, banter between John and the Antagonists. These films have often had a light tone when it comes to villains and John, because it creates a sense of humour that is often only achieved in the Die Hard series. This will be explained more in the third sequence.This sequence is a great example of how the Die Hard series capitalizes on the acting of Bruce Willis (and Alan Rickman too, who creates an astounding American accent). It works on the tensions of the audience and works as effective character development of the villain Hans. The use of the props is well done too, because it emphasizes the progression of John from the start of the movie, where he was weak and outmatched, to the mid point, where he is competent and tactical.

Sequence Analysis: The death of HansThis is the final sequence of Hans Gruber, where McClane confronts him as he uses Holly as a human shield.Before this scene, for context, John realizes he hasn’t got enough ammo for a firefight, but he sees a trolley with various tools on it. The scene starts with John knocking out a thug, who drops his bonds. The use of this prop and the effect it creates has weight, since these bonds are meant to be of great value. It also compliments the fast pace of this film’s action. The next part is John calling Hans, with phenomenal acting by Bruce Willis, giving an impression of a worn out yet climactic tone. This almost primal roar gives the relationship between Hans and John more impact, considering the context. The audience sees McClane stumbling forward with his MP5, sparks illuminating his silhouette and the lighting giving a tense atmosphere. The acting of both Hans and his thug suggest they are cautious of McClane, since he has neutralized everyone in their crew. This is why Hans using Holly as a human shield stands out, because throughout the film he has been outwitted and stopped by McClane, a cowboy cop, despite appearing to be the brains of the operation. He is resorting to cowardly tactics, which end up being his downfall (Ha). The comedy in the dialogue in this scene is what I referenced in Scene 2, where they ‘banter’ between each other. Because John is written as an everyday man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it makes him more human if he tries to joke with those who want to kill him. It also helps develop the relationship between the protagonist and antagonist and makes them more realistic characters. This is why the laugh scene is significant, it makes Hans a believable villain.Now on to the death itself. John drops his MP5 and puts his hands over his head, Holly gasping mirroring the audience members. This creates suspense and pressure since it suggests John has given up, but while he laughs with the villains, we see a camera shot that reveals the gun. This effective use of props and angles makes a great pay off for the build up, and John shoots the thug and Hans. The falling of Hans was a genuine reaction from Alan Rickman, because he was dropped early (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/trivia?item=tr0792184). The use of green screen and location is well done because it creates a fairly convincing scenario. The use of comedy, from the police chief, helps keep the tone light considering a man just splattered on the concrete.This final scene emphasizes the fast pace action of Die Hard when it comes to it’s final scenes (except for Die Hard 3’s cut ending) and also the relationship between John McClane and his adversaries.

Personal Opinion: Die Hard 1Die Hard 1 is my favourite in the series and one of my top 10 actions films. It is a perfect film for anyone who wants some well executed and paced action, without too much cheese. The film is light hearted in the right places and brutal in others. John is a believable character, with flaws and quirks that make him both vulnerable and sympathetic. The use of iconic arms such as the MP5 and Berretta make this a treat for those that enjoy late 80s action films. I consider this a foundation of film production and an example of how bad modern action films have taken shortcuts and lack development.In terms of characters, I find Hans a believable villain and a great contrast to the character of John McClane, the cowboy cop who is out of his league.

A look at Die Hard 2: Die HarderThis film is personally my least favourite (but I will expand on this after the scene analysis). After the success of Die Hard 1, a sequel was too good to pass up for 20th Century Fox. This film was given to a different director, Renny Harlin, which explains the direction of the film. The movie once again has John McClane in the wrong place at the wrong time, but instead of Nakatomi, he is at an airport instead. The film takes place yet again at Christmas, with wife Holly’s life yet again at stake. The concept of this film is the shutdown of communication between air liners and a control tower, which is fairly dramatic but this only leads to one plane crashing (which does give John some character development, but not much). This film makes multiple connections to the first film, bringing back a couple of actors to reprieve their roles, but this doesn’t add much to the film’s reception.The film received a 67 on Metacritic, had a $70 million budget, earned $240 million at the box office and was released on July 4th 1990.

Sequence Analysis: The Airplane FightThis sequence starts at 01:41:21 and ends at 01:46:39The final fight of Die Hard 2 is the high point of the film, where John fights on the wing of a plane taking off. The props in this scene are quite expensive, which does improve the quality of the fight. The helicopter dropping John off and the use of a plane make the fight more fast paced. John jams his coat into the plane wing’s flaps, preventing a take off. This causes the major and colonel to investigate. The use of fans and wind make this scene more authentic and give a sense of gravitas to the scenario. John ambushes the major, leading to a well choreographed fight. The use of hand to hand combat between the two is a good move, since it makes more use of the environment than a simple gun fight. This choice makes the scene both cheaper to produce and more enjoyable to watch. The death of the major is creative and also makes great use of the setting. The use of blood could have been stretched out a bit more, this is an 18 after all, but Die Hard isn’t really a gore film.We now get a fist fight between John and the colonel. The knife going into McClane’s arm could have been shown more clearly, but it would possibly have offset the tone of the series (even though McClane shoved an icicle into a thug’s eye). The skill of the military trained colonel is too much for McClane, and he is literally booted off his plane. This would seem a defeat but McClane was able to release the fuel storage, causing a visible stream. The choreography of the fight also makes it clear that John uses an untrained fighting style, compared to the colonel’s poised stance for countering. This adds to the idea that John is an every man, employing grapples and low attacks. As the plane takes off, John takes out his lighter, says his catchphrase “Yippee-ki-yay, mother fucker” and burns the trail. This is yet another example of John using his streetwise wits and brawn to get a victory over a more competent villain, similar to Die Hard 1. The plane explodes in a violent fireball, and John yells victoriously with the phrase “Holly! There’s your landing light!”.There isn’t that much going on it this sequence, it does contain McClane bantering with the antagonists, but not to the same degree as the first film. The explosion of the plane is quite spectacular, as is the well executed hand to hand combat.

Personal Opinion: Die Hard 2Die Hard 2 is my least favourite Die Hard film (I have not seen 5 since I don’t support excessive torture). This doesn’t make it a bad film, it makes it a bad Die Hard.It has a good premise, good cast, great props and an effective amount of action. It just doesn’t stand out as a Die Hard film. The name alone is just silly (Die Harder?) and the director seems to be taking too many pages out of Die Hard 1. The Half In The Bag clip explains this better.The twist, the anti-terror unit is firing blanks, is a good twist which I unfortunately was spoiled on. The return of both the MP5 and Berretta are good references to the first film, including the use of mini variants.While I dislike this film because it drags on for me, on it’s own this film stands up as a good example of a well done sequel.

A look at Die Hard with a VengeanceWe finally reach Die Hard 3, the film that will end this presentation. Die Hard 3 is a mixed bag amongst fans, mostly due to the setting and also the inclusion of certain political issues. The film returns with John McClane in New York this time, this time at the right place, wrong time. He must face off against Simon Gruber, the brother of Hans Gruber. The main theme of this film is revenge, Simon hates John because of Nakatomi, so he manipulates him to suit his plans. He wants to rob the federal reserve, while the NYPD is running around trying to find a bomb in one of the schools. The ending of the film reveals that Simon is planning to lie to an Arab contractor about blowing up the gold, so no one expects he stole it. The film has a darker tone in places, using subject matters like genuine terrorism, police brutality, racial violence and sex in parts of the plot. We will discuss this after the analysis in a greater amount of detail.This film sees the second and last Die Hard directed by John McTiernan. The co-star is Samuel Jackson as Zeus, a mechanic who believes in capitalism and succeeding on merit, not race. This will be expanded more later. This film has been considered the more comical of the series, despite the original featuring racial slurs and provocative content.The film was better received by some than the second, but not so much with critics. The film got a 58 on Metacritic, but a 7.6 on IMDB (as of writing) and $366 million at the box office. The budget was $90 million and the film has only Bruce Willis making a role reprisal.

Sequence Analysis: Bank InvasionThis sequence starts at 50:00 and ends at 55:50.The invasion of the bank is personally a favourite action scene of mine, because it is a great use of a non-diegetic soundtrack making fast pacing more effective and enjoyable. The soundtrack, a remix of “When Johnny Comes Marching Home”, is fantastically suited for the scene by giving it a sense of cold efficiency and intelligence, similar to the villain. It works on many levels, along with the cinematography of the sequence itself.On to the bank scene itself, the start of which is the demolition equipment being lowered into the wreckage, backed by non-diegetic drums. The use of vehicles throughout this sequence is to great effect, allowing a sense of military efficiency, that comes with Simon’s mercenaries. This is followed by a scene in the bank where Simon meets up with the bank manager. When the guard looks at the mercenaries shoes, they are wearing combat boots. This scene is a nice use of audience interaction, since they should infer that combat boots are not formal. When the manager approaches, more instruments are introduced into the soundtrack. The use of a tracking shot helps keep the focus on Simon and the manager, allowing the audience to also get a sense of steady progression. We then return to the demolition crew and Katya, Simon’s silent partner. The attire of Katya and her inclusion in this film will be discussed later. As she enters the underground we see more demolition vehicles and a build up in the music. The passing of the corpse as she descends is a great way of developing her character (which is unfortunately under-developed throughout the rest of the film). It establishes her as cold hearted and her attire also suggests a military career. With the next scene, we see the men descending into hole, with one of them riding down on the cart. This particular visual is well done because it mimics the military invasion trope of riding along on a tank. This entire sequence is filled with military-esque themes. Back to the bank, we see Simon overpower the bank team non-lethally(?). The comedic light tone in this scene is a good compliment, considering the upcoming scenes. The use of acting here is also effective at establishing Simon as a more light-hearted character than Hans. As the drill penetrates the vault, we then see Hans’ crew pacify the security room. This fast motion and action makes the underground section effective and enjoyable. The fact he had technicians on standby waiting, implies he is a smarter man than his brother. We then meet the shotgun guard, who is holding his ground at the vault. The acting and props this actor uses makes the scene highly active and keeps the pace. This includes the use of keys, the phone, shotgun shells, the shotgun itself and his glock. Katya sneaks up upon the guard, and her style says a lot about how she is characterized. Her stance is loose, but her execution is brutal yet efficient. The character herself will be discussed later in the next slide. The use of the shotgun creates tension, but also acts as an effective prop for creating diegetic sound. We get some light comedy, alongside some effects with the shotgun and the scenery being destroyed. We see Katya’s knife and then she kills the guard brutally. The way Simon intervenes almost suggests he is against excessive force, which is relevant later. The camera angle of the knife is interesting, because it highlights the curve. The vault is opened and we see the gold. The following destruction scene follows the idea of military invasion themes, with gates being pulled down and Simon’s pose. We then get dialogue from Simon, with an effective and charismatic tone, which sets the mood a little bit lighter, contrasting the brutality of Katya.

Extended thoughts on previous sequence

Due to the length I went into previously I am putting the conclusion of that sequence here.This sequence is my favourite in the Die Hard series, because it captures what the original Die Hard had with its scenes. The villain is composed and organized, even if his henchmen aren’t. It also makes him more comical than his brother, Hans, who was much more of a coward. The use of music is a high point that shows the cinematography at its best.

Personal Opinion: Die Hard 3

I love Die Hard 3. It’s a spin on the concept by using an entire city as the location. Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson make a great pair and the villain is cunning and wonderful, Jeremy Irons rivals Alan Rickman’s performance as Hans. I found the ending lacklustre, because it seemed a weak end for Simon.The theme of revenge is what drives this film, with a great connection to the original Die Hard. The bank invasion is one of my favourite uses of music in film, since it capitalizes on the military theme of Simon as a mercenary.

Politics in Die Hard“I'm a soldier, not a monster. Even though I sometimes work for monsters.” - Simon Gruber

The Die Hard franchise is fairly apolitical on the surface, it’s presented as good versus evil. But, a closer look at some of the elements in it suggest the series was trying to cover other concepts. I will try to cover some of those:Race:Die Hard’s villains are always European. This is a trope for the franchise, with no real decisive reason. It might be for the sake of diversity, since being diverse includes antagonists.Die Hard 1 had Al Powell, Die Hard 2 had Leslie Barnes, Die Hard 3 had Zeus Carver. McClane is always partnered with a black partner. Die Hard 1 and 2 also featured black antagonists (Theo the hacker in Die Hard 1 and Amos the major in Die Hard 2). This diversity of protagonists and antagonists is a commendable aspect of Die Hard.Die Hard 3 makes a point that Zeus is upfront about his race, constantly ranting at McClane that this is a “white problem”. This is used later to develop their relationship, as they learn to ignore their racial difference.Gender:Die Hard 2 makes a joke about self defence, with a grandmother who tested out her Taser on her pet dog, paralysing it. This would later be used to incapacitate Richard.Die Hard 3 has a female antagonist called Katya, who is a mute working for Simon. Her attire and actions make her out as a sadistic killer. This inclusion of a female antagonist helps diversify the cast.Die Hard 2 has Colonel Stuart performing naked judo. This scene is either to establish the Colonel as a hard veteran, or was just used as objectification.Morals:Hans plans to mislead the FBI into believing he is a terrorist, in order to steal money. He has no concerns with terrorism, instead seeing it as an opportunity to steal the bonds.Colonel Stuart uses terrorism in order to get a drug lord into a country with no extradition laws. He is planning to abuse human rights.Simon Gruber uses non-lethal means to take over the bank, fools the NYPD into thinking the schools have bombs and only plans to kill John for revenge. He sees this as a matter of principle, which is why he is against killing children. His quote is at the top.Richard uses sensationalist journalism to get the truth out to the airport, but Holy zaps him with a Taser.

Die Hard with a Vengeance: Alternate Ending

Die Hard 3 had an alternate ending, which was removed before release. This ending is much darker and more personal than the theatrical release ending, where John and Zeus are flying around in a helicopter and taunting Simon.Personally in my opinion, this ending works better considering John McClane as a character has often broken rules and gone against his superiors.This also might of suggested that the third film was meant to be the last in the series.Watch it and draw your own conclusions, but from an analysis stand point, this ending is much more relevant to the theme of revenge in Die Hard 3.More info:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hard_with_a_Vengeance#Alternate_endings

An extract from Half In The Bag

Half In The Bag is a review show that looks at recent films and criticizes/praises them. Their tone is meant to be light hearted with genuine analysis and experience behind each of the reviewers. In this extract, they discuss the Die Hard series, due to the review being about A Good Day To Die Hard.If you wish to see more of Half In The Bag, look up Red Letter Media on Google/YouTube.www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_GPgY5mgq8

Closing thoughtsDie Hard as a series has evolved, adapted and flourished with each instalment, until the most recent film. This explains why I chose this film for my project. I enjoyed creating this and giving people a view on how I see these films from a critical view, how they define themselves as a part of the Action genre.To set the record:Die HardDie Hard with a VengeanceDie Hard 4.0Die Hard 2: Die HarderPOW TortureThank You.