From the worst ideas ever dept: Thoughts on a 'Die Hard' reboot

I think I've made it pretty clear on this blog that by-and-large I'm vehemently opposed to reboots and re-imaginings of classic films. The only time they've been successful in my eyes is when its a long-running series in desperate need of new blood. And the best of these -- I'm thinking of the reboots of James Bond and Star Trek in particular -- work because they don't mess with the formula in any profound way. These are essentially homages to the films that proceeded them (which is what I am hoping the new Ghostbusters will be.)

And yet I still think they are almost always a money grab and evidence of the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood. They would rather bet big on a product that has established earning power, than try to take a risk on originality.

The most recent Jurassic Park film was the most egregious example of that. That film may go down as the least memorable monster hit film of all time. It added nothing to the mythology of the original films, if anything it only introduced dumber ideas, like the notion that raptors could be trained to defend human beings, but I digress.

I raise this point because I stumbled upon the news today (and perhaps this has been out there for a while) that in their infinite wisdom Hollywood is looking to do a "young John McClane movie." That's right, they're planning to reboot arguably the most beloved action film of all time; Die Hard.

There are so many things wrong with this idea I don't know where to start. First off, Bruce Willis has already buried this franchise with one sequel to many. The original three still hold up and will always be fan favorites and there is nothing there to be improved upon. Live Free or Die Hard ushered in the era of a superhuman McClane who somehow became more durable with age. Like most audiences, I avoided A Good Day to Die Hard because the reviews were awful and I saw nothing to encourage me that this was a return to basics. I prefer my McClane with hair I guess.

Bruce Willis in Die Hard

So since Willis is now considered (finally) too old for the part and they can't create a new previously unseen child/heir to continue the series with, we're going to get a "young McClane" movie, with all the usual suspects (the hunky Chris's -- Evans, Pratt, Pine) are all being bandied about as possibilities to fill McClane's dirty tank top. I've got nothing against these actors but I don't think any of them could top Willis or bring anything new to the role.

A young McClane film would have zero tension we know he is going survive from frame one because we know he goes on five more adventures -- and yes, I know that is true of the Bond films but part of the appeal of 007 is figuring out how he will escape certain death. Not so much with McClane.

The genius of the first three films is they put the McClane character in a unique, pretty-much-contained presser cooker situation and he barely gets out of each one of them alive. Even Die Hard with a Vengeance which opens up the stakes and even provides him with a sidekick is a tough slog for McClane. Part of his appeal is that he is something of an average Joe who's in over his head.

Also it's not like he was 45 when made the first Die Hard -- he was young then. Also, are these films going to take place in the early 1980s or are we just going to ignore time? Also, why are they doing this? Doesn't Hollywood understand that this is a terrible idea that will never work?

I can stomach a lot of mediocre movies. I went to the theaters and sat through a PG-13 Die Hard movie which had the audacity to cut the profanity from McClane's signature line, but a new film, without Bruce Willis, starring some pretty boy -- well that makes me want to do a Mr. Takagi on myself.