MovieChat Forums > Die Hard 2 (1990) Discussion > Was Col. Stuart in some ways a tougher v...

Was Col. Stuart in some ways a tougher villain than Hans Gruber?


Col. Stuart unlike Hans, struck me as a guy who could legitimately kick your ass in a fight on his own. I don't know how formable Hans could be without his gang. Like in the first one, when Hans realizes that the gun that he's trying to shoot John McClane with is out of bullets, Hans doesn't sweat because he knows that his henchman, Karl is looming in the background. Hans felt more like a villain who was more of a calm master manipulator than somebody was a born and bred solider like Stuart.

reply

The colonel definitely had more potential to be menacing because it seemed like he was meaner, less refined, and was a special ops kinda guy.

But I have to tip my hat to Hans Gruber because he had more scenes with McClane, and the enclosed area of the Plaza made him more threatening to McClane.

reply

Yeah. Unlike Hans, Stuart actually did hurt McClaine physically in a fight. In Die Hard 1, Hans' men end up being the ones to inflict injuries on him. But Hans never really does anything to him. Come to think of it, in the 3rd one [spoiler]Hans' brother Simon never gets into a physical fight with him either. Coincidence?[/spoiler]

reply

I reckon Simon could easily kick Hans' ass, and, if necessary, he could have given McClane a good hiding too.

reply

Yes, but he was also a less interesting one.

Plus, Hans was simply a thief who wasn't particularly interested in killing people. None of the deaths were personal for him. He merely orchestrated those deaths in order to facilitate his plan. He was a cold and clinical cynic who saw his victims merely as collateral rather than just deaths.

reply

Of course he was tougher...he did naked Tai-chi...that's the universal mark of a badass!

reply

^ exactly.
Hans was kind of a sweetheart let's face it.

reply

Hans Gruber was a much more likeable villain overall. Colonel Stuart was just an arsehole.

reply