It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Live Free Or Die Hard was called Die Hard 4.0 overseas because of the plot surrounding computers.. so calling the next one Die Hard 5.0 wouldn't make much sense, since the plot involves escaping a russian prison.
but i agree, one title is enough - why the need for films to change titles for different countries doesn't make sense to me.
Actually, the title was changed because it was considered "unlikely" that anyone outside the US would understand the "Live free or die" reference to the American Revolution. This is somewhat similar to License to Kill's title being changed from License Revoked because Americans supposedly wouldn't understand what "revoked" means (which, like John Glen, I find hard to believe, as I'm American, and I understand what it means).
http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/spartacus-alum-jai-courtney-lands-coveted-die-hard-lead/
Well consider the kid was like 3-6 IN THE 80'S, I'd imagine he's grown up -_-
He doesn't look like a McClane! I'd rather have Lucy back. Funny how none of the actors actually in the running for the role of Jack didn't get picked. :-w
Die hard came out in 1987, so assuming he was 3 to 6 back then, he'd be 28 to 31 and the guy who plays Varro looks way older than 31.
Ha, okay.
Nah, he's at least 50, right? :P
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052286.html?cmpid=RSS
Filming begins the last week of this month.
Actually it came out in 1988. Sorry, I'm a little obsessive when it comes to movie years! Hahaha.
The third and fourth films are alike, as are the second and fifth it seems. Maybe the sixth, and last, will be like the original?
I don't like the look of him either. I don't know why Mcclanes son has to get involved. Why can't Willis just do it on his own without some annoying guy in the background trying to be just as cool as Mcclane but failing. I bet that he'll save John at least once.
That would be wonderful if the last one happened on Christmas Eve. :D
In the minority maybe, but I do feel they are going too far with these McClane movies now, and Bruce Willis still down for Part V, ?, where will it all end
They had the good sense to end Lethal Weapon at Part 4 when it had outrun it's course and even the awful Police Academy was put out of it's misery after what seemed like an eternity of poor releases, but Die Hard, while not as bad as that and sometimes enjoyable, well I just feel they maybe should of finished the McClane movies at number 4, I feel it's getting a bit out of hand now especially with subsequent releases lined up
It's simply banging heads against a brick wall here, but it's just how I see it
It was either a part 5 or a remake of the first movie. They went with a part 5 and, IMHO, that was the way to go.
According to Willis, he wants to do six, so one more after this one.
I for once am looking forward to Valentine's Day! I like all the films to some degree and this one looks to be a step in the right direction, again.
Problem is, if the 6th film is a box office hit, Willis gets a big paycheck and ages well after.... there could a 7th..... IMO the studio is going to milk the franchise dry until Willis can't walk 10 paces without a cane........
The only time I want to see that is Indy 5, when it happens. ;)