And threaten to blow their brains out if John McClane didn't hand himself in? Is it because that does not fit in with Hans’ style at all, which was more elegant and sophisticated, at least in his mind? Unlike his brother Simon, Hans doesn't seem to have more of a taste for violent, theatrical performances to put it in another way. Hans always avoided giving idle threats, lest that give the hostages reason to question his authority.
share'Cause he was d-u-u-u-u-u-m-m-m-m-b-b-b!!!!!!
shareIt is very funny how well mannered and polite Simon is compared to Hans.
"You know, your brother was an asshole!"
"Hah!"
"He really was an asshole!"
"Yes he was. He was an asshole! You got his number!"
Lifting up McClaine, "Careful now. Forgive me."
"Can I have some aspirn? I've had a bad fucking headache all day long."
"Here. Keep the bottle."
Simon though did blow up that store which took some people in their cars with it.
"Simon though did blow up that store which took some people in their cars with it. "
Don't forget the subway train explosion. The only reason there wasn't huge number of casualties was John McClane, who wasn't supposed to have a chance to get there in time.
Even McClaine knew there was no chance to get there in time. It was meant to go off.
shareBecause McClane may have very well surrended and then that'd be the end of the movie
shareif people have to explain the progression of the plot with
" then that'd be the end of the movie"
or " because it would be a short movie"
or " because then we wouldnt have a movie"
or the classic "because its a movie"
or "because the script needed it"
etc etc
.... its a sign of a shit script.
No, it means movies require some suspension of disbelief in order to work. Die Hard amazingly requires less of it than most films do, so I don't see it as a problem
shareYou can say that about 99 percent of films though. I mean take the second film and the unlikely chance of mcClane being around at the same time as another incident.
Or someone just hasn't paid attention enough to the movie to realize that this effectively comes up in the movie.
Hans already realized that executing hostages didn't seem to affect McClane, so why bother to use up the leverage until necessary not to mention, risk drawing the ire of the police outside.
Well McClane did let Ellis die. Immediately afterwards, Gruber demanded his detonators,"or shall I kill another one? Sooner or later I might get to someone you DO care about."
McClane's response, "go fuck yourself, Hans," told Gruber that hostage execution wouldn't work, at least not right away.
Meanwhile, every hostage he does kill increases the chance they'll just get stormed by the police (whom Gruber already knows were listening in on the execution)
Frankly, Gruber's lucky they didn't just come storming in after he killed Ellis. Sure, some or all of the hostages may die in the assault, but once the hostages start dying, there's no guarantee any of them will make it out alive.
As far as Hans knew, Ellis was John's pal, despite McClane telling him he's not (John did guess who he was and call him by name first so that screwed Ellis in the end). So if killing Ellis didn't get the detonators out of John, why would the death of random strangers do it?
Whatever Hans has in mind, executing hostages one at a time isn't going to get it done. Even with no knowledge of Hans's true objective McClane is smart enough to know that. The LAPD and the FBI would just make a greater effort to storm the building and that would make the bad guys deal with them.
It just wouldn't be on.
Glad someone else remembered/realized this.
shareCause John wouldnt have handed himself in. We know that because he didnt give the detonators when they threatened Ellis.
share