Saturday, July 14, 2007


I just e-mailed this to a friend, but I figure it warrants posting here too: via Michael May's Adventureblog, I see Ten reasons why John McClane is more bad-ass than Optimus Prime.

Well, duh. I think the real question is, who's more bad-ass: John McClane or Jack Bauer? For instance, John McClane never has to torture anybody, and while he might be racing against time, he never seems all angsty about it the way Bauer does -- I mean, Bauer's always barking to somebody about how "he's running out of time", whereas McClane just keeps chuggin' along, making one wisecrack after another.

How about you all, folks? Terrorists are gonna do some really bad stuff, so who do you want after them: McClane or Bauer?


Unknown said...

McClane or Bauer? The answer was simple!

Anonymous said...

The Transformers are flawed anyway. The good 'bots turn into cars & trucks while the bad 'bots turn into fighter planes and spaceships and whatnot, yet the Autobots defeat the Decepticons against all reason.

After being dragged to the most recent Die Hard movie, I realized that McClane really should have started out as a comic book character. I think The X-Men films required less suspension of disbelief. Also, the comic book origins of McClane which never were would have allowed for more creative license and special effects in the Die Hard movies.

In any case, I'd prefer to send McClane.


Anonymous said...

I just watched the first Die Hard for the first time, and then Die Hard 4 on the same day.

John MacClane from 4 wasn't even remotely the same character as he was in I, in my opinion.


In 1, he's an ordinary guy whose first response to the "terrorist" takeover is to call the police. (And, when he finally gets them to come he calls "macho assholes" for trying to storm the place.)

He can be hurt -- his poor feet! And he can feel stupid and scared. There's the whole thing about apologizing to his wife because he didn't care enough about her career. In other words, he is *not* a macho asshole.

Plus, he's smart and creative. Every time I'm yelling at the screen "Don't give him the gun!" "Throw something out the window" he either does it, or does something better that I didn't think of, but which still makes sense. Really, the whole plot hangs together a thousand times better than your average action movie.

I swear the script from the original Die Hard is some of the best writing I've ever seen in any medium. Every single character, including the random FBI guys and the bad guys, gets at least a little bit of development, and most get some kind of character arc to go through. Efficiently, in just a line or two sometimes. But jeez, textbook example of how to do this stuff without weighing your story down with exposition and backstory and as-you-know-Bob. I *wish* I could write that well.

By Die Hard 4, though, the plot's a joke, the villains are cardboard cutouts, and MacClane's a superhero whose dialog consists mainly of taglines. The whole thing was a ripoff of "Hackers" without the realism...

Same thing happened to Jack Bauer, only he didn't start out *quite* as good as MacClane. Only almost.

Who would win would depend on who was writing it... In both cases, the writers always arrange the universe for their guy.


Kelly Sedinger said...

The original is a classic film, truly and utterly. The first two sequels are also quite good, better-than-average action flicks. (The third is unfairly maligned, in my opinion.) I'll probably wait for the DVD to see the latest one.