This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Die Hard 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
"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).
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)
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)
I have removed the following text:
"Furthermore, a potential solution to the communication problem is presented in the film itself, and yet nobody thinks to use it. At several points during the film, characters are able to use the air phones to make telephone calls between the plane and the ground; Thornburg, in fact, is able to narrate a lengthly news report using precisely this method. No explanation is offered as to why air traffic control simply don't call the air phones on the various planes in order to guide them down."
This isn't true - in the scene where Barnes and co think of using the outer marker beacon as a voice transmitter, they discuss the fact that there are only 5 planes with air phones aboard, and they could only get through to three of the aircraft to explain the situation on the ground. fatbarry2000 ( talk) 11:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The "handy" links at the top of each Die Hard film page to other films in the series aren't necessary. They should be listed under "see also" at the bottom of the page.
Please examine protocol for other film series. No other major film series is set up this way (Alien, Lethal Weapon, etc). What if the franchise went on for 10 or 12 installments? Would it be rational to take up space with links to all the other titles in this manner?
I'm not going to get into a revert war over something so ludicrous, so whoever's insisting these links show up for the uninformed public's use can leave them there for all I care. PacificBoy 07:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this the right Don Harvey listed? The Wiki link is to Don Harvey that died in 1963, 27 years before Die Hard 2 came out. Norum ( talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NOT#PLOT, plot detail needs to be kept down and summarized, necessitating the removal of unimportant details. I believe a paragraph devoted to this is unimportant detail, except for the one line, since it explains why the people at Dulles are panicked. But that is the only effect on the plot and it can be summarized in one sentence. hbdragon88 ( talk) 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hasn't anyone noticed that this movie is an action movie where McClane is playing out the Iran-Contra affair in a fictional aftermath? PokeHomsar ( talk) 01:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Just listen to the television reporters in the scene when the main antagonist is doing his weird naked yoga. PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Link time:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,300003,00.html
Yeah, that second link is to a page of a book where the author quotes one of the writers of the screenplay saying exactly what I said. PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on that link which gives me a source straight from the writer's mouth, I added it to the page. PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification as I know John's character is a NYPD detective and not LAPD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.153 ( talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
John says he moved to LA to follow his wife's job, so he transferred to LAPD Vicarage ( talk) 17:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
{GEOGRAPHY} They completely get the DC area geography wrong. Saying the planes will crash into the potomac? Dulles is nowhere near the potomac, nor really near DC for that matter. They even said at the beginning they applied DC law? Dulles is in Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.143.33 ( talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The geography error isn't even close to the most egregious. The fact that there are multiple airports in the D.C. area other than Dulles, ruining the entire central conflict of the movie (i.e. planes stuck in the sky that can't get to another airport in time, one of which has McClane's wife on it.) PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Saying without source that a murdering terrorist is "clearly based" upon a living individual never connected to such acts is a textbook BLP violation, so I have deleted the claim. 205.206.130.93 ( talk) 14:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I get opinions regarding the appropriateness of adding an admittedly non-live Trivia section to the article as per this edit? Personally I'd rather see it added here than see unsourced trivia, even non-live trivia, added to the article itself. Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 16:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Die Hard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason for that? Jim Michael ( talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
We got a lot of articles that have character's info which is necessary for film articles if you haven't gathered. Even Die Hard had that detail, which some additional casting below at the cast section if you want to do something like that while maintaining the content on it. BattleshipMan ( talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with brief character descriptions in the cast section, some people are important enough to credit but not important enough to the plot that it can be described without including them, plus bare lists should never be used at all. I didn't have a problem with the descriptions on Scarface either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there any acceptable way to make this more orderly. As a reader, when I see version 791396817, what I see looks confusing rather than helpful. If we should include brief notes, can we somehow divide the cast in groups, so we have first the main roles, who are mentioned in the plot and who need no descriptions, then some roles with a unique note (sister or brother of X, etc) and then a section for Stuart's mercenaries, where we don't have to add a note for each role? And please, not colwidth=20em, with all the notes, 3 columns make it worse (at least for a 1280 screen). Here is an example, with less words where possible. Is this more acceptable to both sides? Hoverfish Talk 15:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) I have removed descriptions which are mentioned in the plot. Hoverfish Talk 15:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Specifically responding to BattleshipMan's comment above the readers will not know which occupations they are and such for one. There are various reasons why we should have them for the sake of readers.. This is not WP's purpose. We are not a guidebook, particularly towards the fictional narrative, as we are writing for the general audience who may never have seen this film, rather than people who have seen it and need to understand it in depth (there are plenty of other online resources for this). We can't ignore some of the minor stars that appear in the film, but their roles in this is so minor to the plot as they are not named on screen (credits, yes), and appear for only a scene or two before they are killed off or left out of the rest of the story. They wouldn't be named in a <700 word plot summary over other more fundamental details, and thus we don't need to give extensive discussion to these characters. When you do that, the role of the other major stars should be clearly obvious from a well-summarized plot, and thus those characters descriptions are just not needed. -- MASEM ( t) 15:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm commenting here per a request by BattleshipMan. It's true that we include character detail in the Cast section of our film articles, but it is best to make sure that it's not overly redundant to the Plot section. If BattleshipMan provides character detail that is not overly redundant to the Plot section, and preferably character detail that includes sourced actor and/or creator commentary, I think it will be fine. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
John McClane says to Lorenzo that Glocks are made in Germany but Glocks are Austrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 ( talk) 00:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Die Hard 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
"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).
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)
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)
I have removed the following text:
"Furthermore, a potential solution to the communication problem is presented in the film itself, and yet nobody thinks to use it. At several points during the film, characters are able to use the air phones to make telephone calls between the plane and the ground; Thornburg, in fact, is able to narrate a lengthly news report using precisely this method. No explanation is offered as to why air traffic control simply don't call the air phones on the various planes in order to guide them down."
This isn't true - in the scene where Barnes and co think of using the outer marker beacon as a voice transmitter, they discuss the fact that there are only 5 planes with air phones aboard, and they could only get through to three of the aircraft to explain the situation on the ground. fatbarry2000 ( talk) 11:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The "handy" links at the top of each Die Hard film page to other films in the series aren't necessary. They should be listed under "see also" at the bottom of the page.
Please examine protocol for other film series. No other major film series is set up this way (Alien, Lethal Weapon, etc). What if the franchise went on for 10 or 12 installments? Would it be rational to take up space with links to all the other titles in this manner?
I'm not going to get into a revert war over something so ludicrous, so whoever's insisting these links show up for the uninformed public's use can leave them there for all I care. PacificBoy 07:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this the right Don Harvey listed? The Wiki link is to Don Harvey that died in 1963, 27 years before Die Hard 2 came out. Norum ( talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NOT#PLOT, plot detail needs to be kept down and summarized, necessitating the removal of unimportant details. I believe a paragraph devoted to this is unimportant detail, except for the one line, since it explains why the people at Dulles are panicked. But that is the only effect on the plot and it can be summarized in one sentence. hbdragon88 ( talk) 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hasn't anyone noticed that this movie is an action movie where McClane is playing out the Iran-Contra affair in a fictional aftermath? PokeHomsar ( talk) 01:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Just listen to the television reporters in the scene when the main antagonist is doing his weird naked yoga. PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Link time:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,300003,00.html
Yeah, that second link is to a page of a book where the author quotes one of the writers of the screenplay saying exactly what I said. PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on that link which gives me a source straight from the writer's mouth, I added it to the page. PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification as I know John's character is a NYPD detective and not LAPD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.153 ( talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
John says he moved to LA to follow his wife's job, so he transferred to LAPD Vicarage ( talk) 17:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
{GEOGRAPHY} They completely get the DC area geography wrong. Saying the planes will crash into the potomac? Dulles is nowhere near the potomac, nor really near DC for that matter. They even said at the beginning they applied DC law? Dulles is in Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.143.33 ( talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The geography error isn't even close to the most egregious. The fact that there are multiple airports in the D.C. area other than Dulles, ruining the entire central conflict of the movie (i.e. planes stuck in the sky that can't get to another airport in time, one of which has McClane's wife on it.) PokeHomsar ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Saying without source that a murdering terrorist is "clearly based" upon a living individual never connected to such acts is a textbook BLP violation, so I have deleted the claim. 205.206.130.93 ( talk) 14:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I get opinions regarding the appropriateness of adding an admittedly non-live Trivia section to the article as per this edit? Personally I'd rather see it added here than see unsourced trivia, even non-live trivia, added to the article itself. Thanks. DonIago ( talk) 16:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Die Hard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason for that? Jim Michael ( talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
We got a lot of articles that have character's info which is necessary for film articles if you haven't gathered. Even Die Hard had that detail, which some additional casting below at the cast section if you want to do something like that while maintaining the content on it. BattleshipMan ( talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with brief character descriptions in the cast section, some people are important enough to credit but not important enough to the plot that it can be described without including them, plus bare lists should never be used at all. I didn't have a problem with the descriptions on Scarface either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there any acceptable way to make this more orderly. As a reader, when I see version 791396817, what I see looks confusing rather than helpful. If we should include brief notes, can we somehow divide the cast in groups, so we have first the main roles, who are mentioned in the plot and who need no descriptions, then some roles with a unique note (sister or brother of X, etc) and then a section for Stuart's mercenaries, where we don't have to add a note for each role? And please, not colwidth=20em, with all the notes, 3 columns make it worse (at least for a 1280 screen). Here is an example, with less words where possible. Is this more acceptable to both sides? Hoverfish Talk 15:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) I have removed descriptions which are mentioned in the plot. Hoverfish Talk 15:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Specifically responding to BattleshipMan's comment above the readers will not know which occupations they are and such for one. There are various reasons why we should have them for the sake of readers.. This is not WP's purpose. We are not a guidebook, particularly towards the fictional narrative, as we are writing for the general audience who may never have seen this film, rather than people who have seen it and need to understand it in depth (there are plenty of other online resources for this). We can't ignore some of the minor stars that appear in the film, but their roles in this is so minor to the plot as they are not named on screen (credits, yes), and appear for only a scene or two before they are killed off or left out of the rest of the story. They wouldn't be named in a <700 word plot summary over other more fundamental details, and thus we don't need to give extensive discussion to these characters. When you do that, the role of the other major stars should be clearly obvious from a well-summarized plot, and thus those characters descriptions are just not needed. -- MASEM ( t) 15:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm commenting here per a request by BattleshipMan. It's true that we include character detail in the Cast section of our film articles, but it is best to make sure that it's not overly redundant to the Plot section. If BattleshipMan provides character detail that is not overly redundant to the Plot section, and preferably character detail that includes sourced actor and/or creator commentary, I think it will be fine. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
John McClane says to Lorenzo that Glocks are made in Germany but Glocks are Austrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 ( talk) 00:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)