You may or may have not heard already but according to both Collier.com and Empire Magazine's website Len Wiseman has announced that there will be a prequel/sequel to the Die Hard film franchise called Year One, where he told Collider.com that he "...wasn't going to do it without Bruce. I'm also not going to do it with Bruce being a cameo bookend gimmick...".
But reading this article of Collider.com's it does sound like Len Wiseman has had to do a lot to get the Die Hard fans such as myself back on side and that he like myself understands that the more modern releases of the Die Hard films have been shit and not up to the really good action packed, good story of the first three Die Hard films...but I would say though that the more modern Die Hard films are watchable even though they're so bad and they're not so bad to watch of an evening when there's nothing on television.
As he goes on to say that:
"After doing the fourth one, there were so many conversations that Bruce (Willis) and I were having about what he put into the character for Die Hard 1. That character comes in with so much baggage, emotionally, and experience. He's already divorced, he's bitter, his Captain hates him and doesn't want him back. So what created that guy."
And he goes on to say:
"We've never seen the actual love story. We know it's demise, but we've never seen it what it was like when he met Holly, or when he was a beat cop in '78 in New York when there was no chance of him making detective. It's always something I've been thinking about, and now we're doing it. And it ties in."
But thinking about it now, this does sound to me anyway a bit try hardy, like Len Wisemen and Bruce Willis have either seen how bad the more modern release's of Die Hard films are or how bad the reactions have been to the more modern releases and have thought if there were to be another Die Hard film released what would it be about and how or what would it need to have to be better than the other more modern releases of this film franchise...well I have just one thought on that maybe if there was going to be another film maybe don't give it a stupid title like the others such as "Die Hard 4.0" or "A Good Day To Die Hard".
It might be a nice idea now that I think about it to see when Holly and John McClane met but this is suppose to be a more action based film franchise and these films aren't really about the romance between Holly and John McClane it's more about the action of how an off duty policeman keeps getting caught up in terrorist plots when he's off on holiday, and if the movie makers were to simply go off piste and make it a sickly sweet romance or more of a when "Harry Met Sally" film then I think they'd have even more bad reactions from audiences, but I'm sure,-or rather I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that-, the film makers aren't going to turn this next film into a romcom like that film and are probably just like in other films going to have the guy get the girl at the end of the movie after all the action or adventure in the rest of the movie.
But in another attempt to reassure fans by saying that:
" The film will take place on New Years' Eve 1979..."
So this sounds like to me that Len Wiseman is trying to say that this prequel/sequel will have the feel of the first film which took place at Nakatobi Plaza where the company that Holly Gennaro works for in New York is having their Christmas works party but just as John arrives from the airport to join her at the party the Plaza gets taken over by terrorists led by Hans Gruber played by Alan Rickman who ends up falling off the building after he takes Holly hostage and John McClane pushes him out the window but just as the audience thinks Holly's safe he gets stuck to the watch she's wearing nearly taking her with him, but thankfully John McClane manages to take off her watch so Hans falls off the building leaving Holly behind amidst the chaos that was caused.
Making it sound like Len Wiseman may be trying to give hope to the fans like me that he will try to make this new film as good as "Die Hard" was by taking it back to the basics of one off duty policeman having to do his job despite wanting to spend some time with his wife that he's separated from over the holidays and despite not having any idea how to deal with terrorists.
And that:
" It's really working into the plot, with the '70's having ramifications on present day Bruce. It inter-cuts in a very fun, imaginative way with present- day John McClane."
Sounds intriguing to me...but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what this will actually look like when the movie finally comes out.
But another thing that might put this new film on shaky ground is how it has been suggested in this Collider.com article by Len Wiseman that the production an unknown actor as you can't possibly think of the character John McClane without thinking of Bruce Willis.
As Len Wiseman says that:
"It has to be somebody that has the swagger and has the confidence, but also the charm, the wit, the charisma and the toughness. It's asking a lot, especially in somebody that's younger. It has to feel like the guy owns it, rather than is trying to put it on."
So this sounds like to me a bit like the never ending debate that always follows the James Bond films of who will play this part next...so from now until whenever this film finally gets released let the names start being thrown into the hat.
No comments:
Post a Comment