this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
320 points (97.3% liked)

Today I Learned

18095 readers
1013 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Unpopular opinion but I don’t think this movie is good lol. I get that it’s very nostalgic and it has its moments but otherwise it’s not too different from any other late 80’s/early 90’s action film. Which is frankly not a high bar to achieve.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I understand how, in retrospect, it may feel like it isn’t groundbreaking, but do consider that before Die Hard, there really wasn’t anything quite like it.

A quote straight from Wikipedia:

It is considered to have revitalized the action genre, largely due to its depiction of McClane as a vulnerable and fallible protagonist, in contrast to the muscle-bound and invincible heroes of other films of the period.

While it did sort of fall apart and away from what made it great in the later sequels, I think it’s important to put the film into the context of when it was released and what it did to the genre.

All that to say, Die Hard fucking rules.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Exactly, this is 100% Seinfeld is Unfunny material.

In the eighties, action films preferred invincible heroes who slaughtered mooks by the dozen with casual disdain. Die Hard popularized grittier and more realistic action, with heroes who are vulnerable and suffer from character faults. It also popularized the concept of action movies confined to limited space, a setup that this very wiki calls ""Die Hard" on an X". (For example, Speed is "Die Hard on a bus.") Also, at the time it came out, people were shocked at the idea of a comedic actor like Bruce Willis being an action star. Nowadays, what with Tom Hanks Syndrome, comedic actors doing serious roles aren't nearly so amazing. Younger fans might not even know Willis got his start in comedy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same reason I like Dredd from 2012. They confined the story mostly to a location and one main enemy, and I think it helped a bit cause Dredd generally has no flaws and can't be beat.

[–] Ech 3 points 1 year ago

Dredd (2012) is just "Die Hard on LSD"

Jokes aside, Dredd rules.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just learned about the Seinfeld is Unfunny trope from your comment. What a helpful expression in describing media/pop culture progenitors!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah it's a good way of realizing why certain things from your past felt so amazing at the time, but are seen as less impressive to people just experiencing it now. It's hard to describe just how awe inspiring The Matrix was to see in the theaters, or how incredible Golden Eye felt to play on the Nintendo 64 for the first time. Looking back, those things feel like one of a million other movies and games. But that's only because a million other movies and games were changed forever because of them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Or to take it a step further back, try getting someone without context before the modrrn era to understand how groundbreaking Casablanca is. So many tropes were invented in that movie, but watched without that understanding many would say "what's the big deal ?"

It's a good movie even now. But it's a great movie with context

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm in my 40s and wasn't aware of his comedy career.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I think that TV Tropes page was written like a decade ago, if that helps you feel better.

[–] Ech 3 points 1 year ago

I mean, I don't think Moonlighting really targeted preteens and children, so that tracks.

[–] Dethedrus 2 points 1 year ago

He could be a fucking bartender for all we know!

[–] Veedem 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That was my complaint after Die Hard with a Vengeance. He became a little indestructible and lost some of the flaws that made the character exciting to watch. The first 3 are great in keeping true to the character, but the movies after DHwaV are just generic action movies borrowing a character’s name.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I maintain that Live Free or Die Hard is a much better movie when you watch the uncensored version. Yeah, a lot of the shit McClane goes through is not something any regular Joe would survive but the movie at least tries to make it survivable. And the uncensored version adds in a lot of the blood that should've been present with all of that bullshit in the first place.

[–] Veedem 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn’t watch the uncensored version. Might have to give that a try.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's a little hard to find. Never released on Blu Ray and only available to purchase in 1080p and also not streaming anywhere (that I'm aware of). Might also be hard to find on the high seas as a result. But good luck to you!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Oh come on, Die Hard 4 & 5 show he's clearly a flawed character with common average everyday struggles like being a deadbeat dad.

[–] Ech 2 points 1 year ago

In minor defense of DH4, which I agree goes beyond the premise of the first 3, it does kind of follow that John would be better able to do some crazier things after going through the events of the first 3 movies. He still shouldn't be indestructible, but his experiences definitely qualify him as badass at that point. I also still like DH4, so I wanna justify that somewhat, hah. DH5 is just not good, though.

[–] Num10ck 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it was so different because he was an anti-hero, and he got visibly beat thoroughly and never stopped being a smart ass about it.

[–] Ech 3 points 1 year ago

I wanted to say that's not what 'anti-hero' means, but I kind of see where you're coming from. In my mind, an anti-hero does terrible stuff to achieve good goals (Deadpool being a prime example), while John McClaine does do some pretty vicious things, but is more or less just trying to survive, not because he wants to do the terrible things.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My kids watched it for the first time ever last weekend. They had no nostalgia or frame of reference for it and yet they both loved it - “the dumbest fun movie I’ve seen in ages”. We’re watching #2 tonight.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I've always told people they're thinking too much when they watch these movies. Just have fun. They're ridiculous, that's the point.

[–] Wrench 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's because it set the mould, and dozens of copy cats followed the formula thereafter.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's like looking at Half-Life in 2023 as someone who never played it in 1999. It doesn't look like much of anything; but that's because everything that followed copied it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe so, but if they did it better then as someone who watched it later it doesn't do much for me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I'm curious which movies you would say did it better. I'm always up for a good watch (if I haven't already seen it).

[–] DredUnicorn 7 points 1 year ago

That's the thing, it WAS different to other action movies at the time. Im not going to say you are wrong not to like it, but it can't be denied that it blazed a trail for a new type of action movie and, as a result, is loved by millions.

[–] agent_flounder 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean nobody is going to call it some high art cinematic masterpiece. But it is a fun entertaining movie.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, maybe that's my problem. It's not some grand masterpiece of film and I didn't find it very entertaining. Obviously that's a subjective judgment on my part though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I suppose you had to be there at the time. For people who only watched US/Hollywood films it was wild. There hadn’t been much, if anything, like it before. Everything that came after it… came after it.

[–] rockandsock 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not outstanding but it is well crafted.

Iconic action scenes, memorable, quotable dialog and one liners. Great charismatic actors playing the hero and the main villian. Good actors playing supporting characters.
Decent coherent easy to follow story.

Lots of action movies from that era don't score highly on at least a few of those points and have been mostly forgotten.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s fair. It is a well rounded movie. I just didn’t find it exceptional.

[–] rockandsock 1 points 1 year ago

I haven't bothered to watch it again since the 90s.

I agree with you.

I'll watch most of the Schwarzenegger movies from this era ahead of this.

[–] Gumus 2 points 1 year ago

And hair! Don't forget hair. Lots and lots of hair...