MovieChat Forums > Die Hard 2 (1990) Discussion > Was it necessary to bring back William A...

Was it necessary to bring back William Atherton's character in DH2?


I didn't really see why they've needed to bring back William Atherton's character for this movie and all what they pretty much do to his character was have people be mean to him and treat him like crap, I did feel bad for William Atherton's character in DH2 cause I didn't think he was nearly as mean as he was in the original

reply

much meaner. he stole a bag of peanuts.



His name...was Julio Iglesias!

reply

I like William Atherton and seeing Holly taser him was hilarious, but yeah I agree that he felt superfluous in this film. The Holly-Thorneberg scenes really drag on repeat viewings.

reply

Not really, but I like when sequels bring back small characters.

reply

[deleted]

Why?

That's like saying it'd be pointless to show McClane after he arrived at the airport, just because he wasn't fighting Gruber!

(Don't worry, I'm not disagreeing with your ultimate point; hear me out - I was just kidding..)

Instead they introduced NEW bad guys; there's no reason they couldn't have done the same on Holly's plane. How about actually getting her truly involved and having the Castro-Dude as a government hostage on HER plane?

He could have still hijacked the plane and turned that part into a big, dramatic scene for McClane. Then he lands and the rest of that scene effectively takes place as happened, then Castro-Dude escapes, airport staff arrive and passengers are accounted for...except Holly.

Turns out Castro-Dude grabbed her and took him with her, just by chance. Once again she's a hostage, so it's still a reference to the first film, while keeping her massively involved. She could've then been used to distress McClane even more later on in the film.

___
Twitter: http://twitter.com/aps87

reply

[deleted]

BUMP

reply

I don't think the film needed Reginald VelJohnson's cameo appearance either, but both actors' characters provided familiarity in an uncertain sequal that takes place on the opposite coast and, once again, way up high. Bonnie Bedelia's character, though trapped and stunted, was especially needed as muse for McClane's heroics, and likewise offered a particular level of familiarity (i.e., comfort) to viewers. Those familiar characters help to round out John McClane so that he's not just another jaded action antihero like the one portrayed in the later films.

Objection, your Honor. You can't preface your second point with "first of all."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

BUMP

reply

BUMP

reply

[deleted]

I also felt the old lady had no reason to call Thornburg an a-hole at the end of the movie.

reply

No, there wasn't. But, it was HILARIOUS! I am so glad that he was brought back.

reply

I think his character provided some commentary and satire on the news media. It felt a little forced because they had already touched upon it in the first one, but it went new lengths in the satire.

reply

Comic Relief. That's all I can figure.

reply