Talk:Die Hard 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Die Hard 2 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Inconsistency/Unfeasibility 2 Blanks 3 Takes Place In The '90s 4 His daughter's plane?

[edit] Inconsistency/Unfeasibility

Did anyone else notice that at the end when the planes are using the line of fire and the exploded terrorist plane as a landing guide, during one shot you can see two or three planes in the screen coming in for a landing to that one spot, even after the flight with John's wife is down and has stopped moving? It seems to me that such would be extremely dangerous since the Windsor flight hadn't been moved very far out of the way. dah

Also, how did the circling planes not see the plane that crashed? Whatever. Lemmy12 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There could be a whole section in here about unfeasibility: how did the hijackers' plane attain take off velocity after someone had just been sucked through the engine? Why didn't they take any hostages on the plane with them so McClane or someone else couldn't blow it up? Igniting the leaking fuel would not have caused the plane to explode because fuel burns slower than a plane takes off. Why did the British plane's GWAS not go off before it crashed? Also, how did the terrorists' act of "re-calibrating sea level" on their control panel cause the British plane's altimeter to think it was higher than it was? That isn't possible. I could go on, but I won't.--BrianFG (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I could probably write ten thousand words about the absolute stupidity of this movie, especially the technical points. I'll suffice with a few I just posted at the analogsf.com discussion page. I will defend a couple of points above. They don't have people circle the airport any more, they have them do "racetrack" ovals at specific hold points a distance from the airport. And all jet engines are required to work after having a couple of chickens thrown into them ... those on a 747 might injest a human and keep running ... one probably did a few years ago when several passengers were sucked out by a cabin wall failure. The plane has plenty of engines and IAD has long runways, and under the circumstances I might expect the terrorists to do a 3-engine takeoff rather than be captured, though ordinarily this would be a capitally bad idea.

The radio stupidity was rampant. I mean, durn, if the aircraft radios go out in your control tower, snag the first airline pilot you see and borrow his battery-operated handheld. That assumes the shelf full of fully-charged ones the tower keeps on hand were snitched by the terrorists, of course. Or run down to the pilot's shop, certainly somewhere on the airport, and buy a new one for about $500.

On the other hand, I thought it was really clever that somebody deliberately mis-fueled a 747 with a mixture of gasoline and nitroglycerine so Willis could blow it up like that, because jet fuel would not have even come close to lighting off that way.

And any pilot that would not divert to their alternate the way they were trained to long before running out of fuel deserves to die. But I fail to see how a plane down to its last few minutes of fuel is gonna make quite that big a fireball. Nor am I clear just how one would turn a dial and make a directional radio beacon glideslope indicator sink into the ground to cause the accident. Those things are 1950's technology and don't work that way. But the plane would have ground proximity radar and would have realized the ground was too close.

Dulles has one of the prettiest and most distinctive main terminals of any airport in the world. Why did they use whatever monstrosity they used? (I came here hoping it might be documented.) Any cinematographer would have delighted in shooting the real deal. And the runways at Dulles are 1 Right, 1 Left, and their back-courses 19 Left and 19 Right, plus little old 12/30 scooting off to the side. This is public information ... why not use it? Tomligon (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Who ever keeps putting the error about the weapons please stop. Mp5's aren't gas operated. They don't need an adaptor to fire fully auto with blanks.

The thing about the Glock shouldn't count as inconsistency. Couldn't it be just a fictional weapon invented for the movie?

[edit] Blanks

"Who ever keeps putting the error about the weapons please stop. Mp5's aren't gas operated. They don't need an adaptor to fire fully auto with blanks."

I beg to differ....even though an MP5 uses a rolling block mechanism, it still needs a blank adapter. A simple google search will pull up plenty of these devices for sale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majorblud (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Takes Place In The '90s

Okay, should the idea of this movie taking place in the '90s (based on a comment by Holly and the Simpsons episode) be under Trivia instead of Synopsis? The year alone is fine, but the ideas that back that up aren't really important to the story. I tried moving it but it was moved back by someone. Anyone care to step forward and explain why? Lemmy12 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His daughter's plane?

Who ever put that John McClane's daughter's plane is going to run out of fuel is wrong. It was his wife's plane. So I changed it. 70.90.174.173 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The part about the Daughter is correct for the novel that this movie is based on. The novel in which Die hard 2 is based off of(58 minutes by Walter Wager)has his daughter on the plane not his wife but for the movie they decided to use his wife.--Emrys Pennent (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)