My only quibble is that I always thought 3 was an improvement over 2, but i agree the original is by far the best.

@Gus Gorman said:

Die Hard - 10/10

Die Hard 2: Die Harder - 9/10

Die Hard With A Vengeance - 8/10

Live Free Or Die Hard - 7/10

A Good Day To Die Hard - 2/10

I would agree with this list.

I had read somewhere that the script to Die Hard III was originally supposed to be a Lethal Weapon sequel. It didn't make the cut and it was tweaked to become DH3.

The Karate Kid is another franchise I rank in release order:

1. The Karate Kid 7/10
2. The Karate Kid, Part II 6/10
3. The Karate Kid, Part III 4/10
4. The Next Karate Kid 1/10

@Dark_Sithlord said:

@Gus Gorman said:

Die Hard - 10/10

Die Hard 2: Die Harder - 9/10

Die Hard With A Vengeance - 8/10

Live Free Or Die Hard - 7/10

A Good Day To Die Hard - 2/10

I would agree with this list.

I had read somewhere that the script to Die Hard III was originally supposed to be a Lethal Weapon sequel. It didn't make the cut and it was tweaked to become DH3.

Trivia time: The original screenplay was called Simon Says and was going to be a Brandon Lee movie (with a female Zeus) then WB rewrote the script to become a Lethal Weapon movie (either 3 or 4). Finally it left WB and became DH3.

Quite a journey!

@Gus Gorman said:

Die Hard - 10/10

Die Hard 2: Die Harder - 9/10

Die Hard With A Vengeance - 8/10

Live Free Or Die Hard - 7/10

A Good Day To Die Hard - 2/10

Thanks to these discussions I've rewatched these films during this week and enjoyed them. The only part I think drives me nuts now is that because I'm a pilot, I know that the premise of Die Hard 2 is utterly ludicrous. Pilots have, and have had, numerous ATC resources for decades. If they'd lost the tower frequency, they'd have tried ground or even other ATC frequencies. Rather than fly their airplane to zero fuel (Jesus), they'd have diverted to an alternate airport nearby and made their landing safely. In short, there is absolutely no way that terrorists could do what these did...ever.

GEEK TIME: I'm also 99% sure that it would be impossible to program an ILS to project a flight path into the ground. The ILS projects two VHF signals at 95 and 150 HZ and a receiver in the airplane uses phase shift to determine whether or not the plane is above, below, or on the glidepath. The key is that the glidepath HAS to be projected from an antenna above the ground. There's no physical way to project a signal that would appear lower than ground level. You could alter the phase shift (maybe?) and adjust the ANGLE of the glide slope, but it would always terminate at the above-ground antenna. For every approach there is also a "Decision Height" which is a height above ground that the airplane will be at at the lowest point of the ILS approach that they'll need to be able to see the runway environment or they're required to fly what's known as a "missed approach." The worst they could have done is give the pilots the wrong altimeter settings, giving them a false "floor" but even with that they would have followed the ILS down at a three percent glide slope (which is very gentle) that, assuming visibility was greater than 1000', per Category II minimums, would have given them way more than enough time to pull up and abort the landing.

In short, it's a fun movie but ridiculous in the extreme.

EDIT: I also forgot about radio altimeters, which are required in Part 121 transport category aircraft. This is a downward-facing radio that bounces a signal off the earth and then measures the echo return, giving the instrument a very accurate above-ground reading below about 2500 feet above the surface. Even if they had the wrong altimeter reading, the radio altimeter would have warned them well in advance of a ground collision.

I agree with Gus, to the extent that I am knowledgeable about the franchise. This doesn't exactly make one eager to see the next installment, does it?

I always thought A Vengeance was better than 2. Better concept, better dialogue, more fun.

Twilight 10/10 The Twilight Saga: New Moon 9/10 The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 8/10 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn 7/10 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn 2 : I have not even watched

So mostly first part of the movies are best

@MirrorUniverse said:

My only quibble is that I always thought 3 was an improvement over 2, but i agree the original is by far the best.

A lot of people claim 3 is better than 2, it's a common mistake.

@Gus Gorman said:

@MirrorUniverse said:

My only quibble is that I always thought 3 was an improvement over 2, but i agree the original is by far the best.

A lot of people claim 3 is better than 2, it's a common mistake.

So, what's the big appeal of the 2nd one? It's a dependable formula retread of the 1st. The 3rd gave us something a bit new.

@Gus Gorman said:

Die Hard - 10/10

Die Hard 2: Die Harder - 9/10

Die Hard With A Vengeance - 8/10

Live Free Or Die Hard - 7/10

A Good Day To Die Hard - 2/10

DIE HARD -- 9.5/10.0 -- part thriller, part summer blockbuster, part holiday namesake

DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER -- 8.0/10.0 -- great set location and higher stakes in this sequel

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE -- 8.1/10.0 with a vengeance indeed, the 'stinger' at the opening sets the mood for this frantic fun flick

/end of the franchise....

@JustinJackFlash said:

I always thought A Vengeance was better than 2. Better concept, better dialogue, more fun.

Agreed. I own the box set and I never watch Part 2. To me, that one sucked. I rank it like 1,3,2. The post 2000 Die Hard films are not really a part of the canon in my head, though I've watched LFODH.

@Damienracer said:

@A-Dubya said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

I always thought A Vengeance was better than 2. Better concept, better dialogue, more fun.

Agreed. I own the box set and I never watch Part 2. To me, that one sucked. I rank it like 1,3,2. The post 2000 Die Hard films are not really a part of the canon in my head, though I've watched LFODH.

Branding the latest sequels non canon because they're recent is childish, believe it or not seeing John's son grow up to become an assassin is better than anything in die hard 3.

It's a "carry the torch" cash grab. Just as infantile as Shia as the next Indiana Jones.

@Damienracer said:

@volkstraum said:

@Damienracer said:

@A-Dubya said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

I always thought A Vengeance was better than 2. Better concept, better dialogue, more fun.

Agreed. I own the box set and I never watch Part 2. To me, that one sucked. I rank it like 1,3,2. The post 2000 Die Hard films are not really a part of the canon in my head, though I've watched LFODH.

Branding the latest sequels non canon because they're recent is childish, believe it or not seeing John's son grow up to become an assassin is better than anything in die hard 3.

It's a "carry the torch" cash grab. Just as infantile as Shia as the next Indiana Jones.

It was still better than die hard 3 but your reply is noted.

No one -- absolutely no person on the face of this earth -- watched the original Die Hard and wanted to see his son grow up to be an assassin. That sort of plot has "MTV action brain jelly" written all over it.

What worked in the original was the chemistry between John McClane and the people who helped him along the way. Mostly his partnership with Carl Winslow.

Enter Die Hard 3 --- a case study of actor chemistry. John McClane and Zeus fulfilled their roles flawlessly. Their chemistry tops anything seen in any "buddy cop" movie to date. I haven't seen the movie in more than a year and I can quote most of the the dialog which they quipped back and forth as they chewed the scenery. Die Hard 3 was delicious.

His son as an assassin? I couldn't even tell you if that was the fourth or fifth film. I imagine most people could not. One of those had John McClane jumping onto a harrier jet. I recall. I guess. A mind-dumbing, by-the-numbers rehash of a good franchise.