Director Says Adding Son to "A Good Day to Die Hard" Was Bruce Willis' Idea

Meh. If Bruce is so brillant, then let him write the next script.

So what will be the next? his grandson?

I figured after die hard 4 the son just made sense. Not a ploy by anyone. But at least this time his kid won't just get kidnapped.

I'll wait for the movie, thank you.
But directors are talkie these days, aren't they.

The son was originally the hacker kid in 4 but um that changed............

Gerard, I agree. The thing that made "Die Hard" great was the fact McClane was just an average NYPD cop who was at the wrong place and time in LA. He got hurt, he wasn't an expert marksman, and he didn't jump on and off fighter jets. The "craziest" thing he did in "Die Hard" was jump off the roof, only being held by a fire hose.

With all that said, I still enjoy the new movies. They are definitely not as good as the original but I think we can all agree there are hardly any movies like "Die Hard" anymore. It's sad, but true.

I concur ^

f*ck I love this franchise more then any other action franchise ever :)

I hope he goes back to being solo in Die Hard 6, Gotta love when it's jump him VS Like 12 Terrorists lol

My die hard ranking:

1
4
3
2

Ehh, we'll see if this bombs.

I can't get over the run time. Do you remember that story about the premier of the original where after fifteen minutes a guy walked out and said "boring". Because there wasn't a gunshot for eighteen minutes. How can we expect that with a 97 minute run time? I will still go in with an open mind.


I HATED the Last Stand. I'm seeing Bullet to the Head Wednesday, hope it's better. it flopped already though. I'm already questioning The Tomb.

@FBO: I'm not usually someone to critique other people's opinions on movie (outside of critics) but really bro wtf you doing putting Live Free as the 2nd best Die Hard. That movie had its nuts cut off in post production, it had some lame Asian superbitch as a bad guy and a completely robotic/underused Olyphant, and worst of all it had the annoying Jewish sidekick mucking up all the action. If it weren't for Willis and a couple of decent action sequences that film would be one of the worst sequels EVER.

Gerard had it right, that movie was more cartoon than film. The Die Hard films just lost steam as they went, which is usually the norm for most long series. 1,2,3,4 with the R rating hopefully 5 can replace 3 or 4. And yes I know 3 was R but it still felt muted and not very violent, especially following the huge body count of 2.

I had always hoped they would use John McClane as a spring board for the sequels. Instead, it was always him against a bunch of bad guys. Take "Speed" for example. That could've totally worked as vehicle for the John McClane character. It had a unique, quick-paced story, with great action sequences. Audiences would've got their "Die Hard-esque" thrills without it being a retread of the terrorists vs. McClane theme. The only sequel that kinda worked was "Vengeance", with its 'Simon Says' plot.
Gerard said everything about the Die Hard series perfectly.

Even Willis is smart enough to know most people, aka kids, don't want to see grandpa fighting baddies. If only he was smart enough to realize they don't want to see Jai Courtney (who?!) either.

Moore continued: "The son has always existed, even in the very first movie he was a little kid, if you remember."

All I remember is Reginald VelJohnson and that limo driver kid.

@SAC - The quick answer is the humor. I really liked the humor.

The long answer is that I am not a fan of useless violence. Actually I am not a fan of useless anything even nudity. It's not that I have problem with either violence or nudity in movies it just has to actually be needed. Which is probably why I am not a huge fan of all the 80's action movies. Because the stories where nothing more than a vehicle to highlight blood and gore instead having a good story that used blood and gore for emotional effect.

Useless violence, like the kind in Die Hard 2, are really nothing more than displays of power and I am not terribly impressed by giant displays of power. Mostly because I am not in junior high anymore. It's a 'roid head. Sure you look strong and some people might even think you like more manly than other men but really you just have a small penis now.

Die Hard 2 was all show, no substance and a way for people with inferiority complexes to reinforce their skewed views of manliness. Live Free Die Hard, however, was fun and entertaining and didn't take itself too seriously.

It's LIKE* 'roid heads...

...some people might even think you LOOK* more manly...

I hate Die Hard 2 because it's nothing but Die Hard 1 dressed up in a wino's dumpster wardrobe.

I like the way cracked.com talks about die hard. Die hard 1 is the one that started it all. Die hard 2 was a poor attempt at a die hard. Die Hard 3 was not a die hard, but a good movie. Die Hard 4 is not a die hard and missing many key aspects of a due hard movie. Die Hards 1 and 2 for the most part stay in one place. 3 is all over New York. What's so different about 4? No Black sidekick. Die hard 5 needs a black sidekick. And a good villain. The Grubers are great. Die Hard 2s bad guy was first seen doing naked martial arts, not classy like hans. Timothy Olyphat is no Mastermind either.

Bruce won and Armageddon was nominated for Razzie Awards?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

@FBO: I get that and appreciate it. I'm a child of the 80s so you must forgive my bloodlust but as AA said 2 still embodied the principles of the first film. LF isn't a Die Hard film. Its all over the place, has ridiculously unbelievable villains, and has no balls whatsoever. Say what you want to say about manliness in 80s films, but just compare it to what we have now. Its not like they replaced that machismo with context and plot. They just muted the violence with shaky camerawork and CGI effects. LAME. I'm all for substance, but it finding it now beneath the layer of million FX and p*ssy narratives is even harder than it was in the 80s. And wasn't that funny imo. But to each his own.

Forgive the mistakes, its a lazy sunday and I'm a little drunk.

Hhaha, you've got a seriously solid point there SAC. It's been a crazy long time since Hollywood knew how to write a story with content.

Hollywood sucks

"2 still embodied the principles of the first film."

lol, well that's one way to put it.



Die Hard 2: true to the original Die Hard 1 formula, sh*tty, sh*tty film.

It's hard for me to agree or disagree with you mink, because when someone generally LOVES a franchise or.. Well anything.. They always look over the flaws..

You feel me right homie? :)

Here's a UK review of the film

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/a-good-day-to-die-hard/24282/a-good-day-to-die-hard-uk-rating-confirmed

So it's a 12A certificate. I don't think I'll bother going to the cinema to see it then, it'll be full of kids.

If 20th century Fox has any balls they will get John McTiernan to direct Old Habits Die Hard and John McClane dies at the end.