Female Die Hard reboot! oh COME ON!

[H.A.L.9000]

honestly who the crap cares?... movie hasn't even come out yet. And when /if it does and someone enjoyed it.. job done. Everything is franchise oriented ... just a name to slap on that's a recognizable banner. im sure the old die hard will remain intact... its just a movie.

[Mark M]

I don't care if it's a male or female lead or whatever other diversity and equality they want to promote with the movie. Just make movie and hope people like it.
But DON'T give the movie the same title as another movie and call it a reboot.
* Also don't let the director, producer and cast bash original movie fans by insulting them and calling them names.*

[Sword2Blanket]

Representation for representation's sake without story, characters and overall production talent becomes (or comes across as) vapid, preachy virtue signaling or (unintentional or not) outright cringe...

I don't really think this is a controversial statement. You could replace the word "representation" with any other concept and the sentence would still be true. Any narrative medium is going to be fatally flawed without story or characters; that just goes without saying.

However, the problem is you're making this characterization without any basis. You haven't even seen a trailer for this hypothetical movie that doesn't exist. For all you know, Die Hard: Charlize Theron Edition may be the best movie of all time. It may perfectly encapsulate the human condition. It may cause you to weep at its sheer magnificence. It could make Citizen Kane look like Sharknado. Or it could be a dumpster fire. You have no way of knowing. Having a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience is the definition of prejudice. Thus, exploding into an outrage supernova in situations like this makes it hard to believe this has anything to do with the quality of the story, characters, or overall production talent.

Quite frankly, I think the misplaced outrage does a disservice to genuine critiques. It makes it much easier to disregard all criticism when a tsunami of it is made in bad faith. In fact, it may even embolden them to continue as-is, even if "as-is" includes being all-around terrible. In effect, you're basically just providing cover and enabling excuses for some movies that are legitimately awful.

[RockinHard]

However, the problem is you're making this characterization without any basis

The basis is that this lazy, tired movement of doing this - remaking established franchises with all-female leads - is not and has not been working, at least for the majority of people/fans of the franchises. Is there a slight chance of it being decent or good? Yes, very slight with the precedent set forth. And that precedent also gives fans of established franchises to rightfully be cynical and be upset about such announcements of remakes, particularly when they change the characters around (female or not) and drop or disregard the established lore and continuity, yet still brand it with the franchise name, and do so because, ultimately, the execs don't care about their virtue-signaling or the fans they are insulting both in the movie and online, but how the familiar brand name can bring in more attention and consequently - money. They COULD get truly creative and come up with an all-female story of their own and market it smartly, but earning the lazy dollar and then excusing their own uncreative garbage they made with defensive name-calling and claims of 'representation' awaits . . .

[Uki]

Just Another MOD NOTE:
Let's be sure to steer away from Tar Swamp material. No politics or other such touchy talk; we've been down this path too many times before for the same people to walk right into the same troubles. Consider yourselves warned (again).

[Darth Latveria]

While I don't have any strong feelings against it, for me the gender of the protagonists and antagonists is secondary to the question of why a reboot is necessary at all. I don't have much interest in it at all and the genitals of the stars don't really impact my desire to watch it.

At the same time, I don't see what the fuss is about. If a movie is coming out that looks appealing to you, watch it. If you like it a lot, spend more money on the merchandise. Alternatively, if the movie doesn't look appealing, then ignore it and spend your money elsewhere. We're blessed to live in a world where there are countless forms of entertainment out there, so why not focus on the things that make you happy?

[Sword2Blanket]

movement of ... remaking established franchises with all-female leads

Is there a slight chance of it being decent or good? Yes, very slight with the precedent set forth

Ok, so if we acknowledge that there's a chance (even a slim one) that it could be decent or good, why not just default to that position instead of turning the rage meter to eleven? If someone asked me, "Hey what do you think about the idea of a Charlize Theron Die Hard?", I'd probably respond "Meh, there's a slight chance it could be good." Why immediately jump to "Female Die Hard reboot! OH COME ON!"? Even if it's terrible....so? I mean, it's Die Hard; I honestly think the precedent of more recent Die Hard movie is more damning than being cursed with a female lead.

...be cynical and be upset about such announcements of remakes, particularly when they change the characters around (female or not) and drop or disregard the established lore and continuity...

As I said, there is certainly room for legitimate criticism of any movie. However, we've put the cart WAAAY before the horse on all of the points you've mentioned. This movie doesn't exist. All this is basically from some fan tweeting that a Charlize Theron Die Hard movie would be cool and her responding she'd be into it. That's it. This is a purely hypothetical exercise and you've instantly projected all these negative characteristics onto it. Why? A Die Hard movie with Charlize Theron as the lead doesn't necessitate changing any character or disregarding existing lore or continuity. Why assume that it would? When you jump out of the gate with over the top criticism based purely on supposition, it is likely to undermine your criticisms that do have merit when it matters.

A general question to everyone:

Do you guys feel that Die Hard movies have to be centered on John McClane, or could another character fill the shoes in a story that fits with the "essence" of what Die Hard is? Gender issue aside, if Bruce Willis never wanted to do another Die Hard, should they stop making them? Should they recast John McClane and continually have him in ridiculous scenarios? Should they move on with another character(s)? What are your thoughts?

[Mikey]

Personally I am in favour of inclusiveness, equality and diversity in all things, and I am sick of stupid expressions like "woke", "pandering" and all the other slurs against those who seek to achieve a world without racism, misogyny and homophobia.

[Bonehead]

When there are an equal number of female-led action movies to male-led action movies, then I can see rebooting a Tomb Raider or Underworld with a male lead. Until then, it makes sense to reboot a male-led property with female leads. Representation and equality matters.

"Representation and equality" do matter. I don't think anyone would argue that but why not just create new stories and characters with female lead characters instead of just gender-swapping characters. It's lazy and only hurts the new product in the long run cause it will obviously be compared to the original.

[wyldman11]

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/82990866.jpg




Ok, so if we acknowledge that there's a chance (even a slim one) that it could be decent or good, why not just default to that position instead of turning the rage meter to eleven? If someone asked me, "Hey what do you think about the idea of a Charlize Theron Die Hard?", I'd probably respond "Meh, there's a slight chance it could be good." Why immediately jump to "Female Die Hard reboot! OH COME ON!"? Even if it's terrible....so? I mean, it's Die Hard; I honestly think the precedent of more recent Die Hard movie is more damning than being cursed with a female lead.



As I said, there is certainly room for legitimate criticism of any movie. However, we've put the cart WAAAY before the horse on all of the points you've mentioned. This movie doesn't exist. All this is basically from some fan tweeting that a Charlize Theron Die Hard movie would be cool and her responding she'd be into it. That's it. This is a purely hypothetical exercise and you've instantly projected all these negative characteristics onto it. Why? A Die Hard movie with Charlize Theron as the lead doesn't necessitate changing any character or disregarding existing lore or continuity. Why assume that it would? When you jump out of the gate with over the top criticism based purely on supposition, it is likely to undermine your criticisms that do have merit when it matters.

A general question to everyone:

Do you guys feel that Die Hard movies have to be centered on John McClane, or could another character fill the shoes in a story that fits with the "essence" of what Die Hard is? Gender issue aside, if Bruce Willis never wanted to do another Die Hard, should they stop making them? Should they recast John McClane and continually have him in ridiculous scenarios? Should they move on with another character(s)? What are your thoughts?

Mad Max Fury Road did horribly at the box office, but it's been reviewed well by both professional and average movie goer reviews. They recast the title character. And many didn't have a problem with it. not a reboot. they made a strong female character to pair along with Max.

Of course I do think news sites toss this out the way they do with the word choices they make just to stir up the pot. They are doing this to get a reaction just like this post.

do I think this could be good or bad? No. But what is the motivation for creating this content? To entertain people? Characters have had their genders changed in preproduction even during production and they turned out fine and at the time no big news was made about it. You don't 'normalize' something by making a big deal out of it, you just start doing it.

Since I tend to not identify with characters in stories, I have no problem if they are male, female, or whatever. Give me good characterization, I love bad guys I would hate to know in real life because they are a good character. I don't need to relate to their sociopathic ways, since technically you can't.

[zodak74]

They could do a movie like this and have the connection to the original series be having the character be John's daughter, who just happens to find herself in the kind of situation her father always, repeatedly, over and over, found himself in.

[RockinHard]

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/82990866.jpg

It's not an exaggeration when there is precedent.

- - - Updated - - -

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/82990866.jpg
As I said, there is certainly room for legitimate criticism of any movie. However, we've put the cart WAAAY before the horse on all of the points you've mentioned. This movie doesn't exist.

It's not so much about the potential movie as it the possibility of another reboot/rehash/etc when they can do something else instead.

Why are you so offended by people being tired of this over fresher movies?

[JVS3]

Am I the only one who has always thought 3 was far superior to 2?

Haven't watched 2 and 3 in many years, though. Still watch the first often.

That's how I felt about it. 2 was essentially a rehash of 1 with a very very loose connection. But 3 was fun and tied into 1 nicely. Plus, I think we all had to memorize that darn riddle about putting 4 gallons of water into a 5 gallon container.


After 3.... they weren't my thing. Like a number of other franchises, they had to up the ante and I didn't connect with them as a result.

All that said, I'm down for a female hero Diehard if the film was directly connected to the existing story and it focused purely on making a fun action movie like the very first one. That believable-yet-not-remotely-believable, fish-out-of-water, right-place-wrong/right-time concept.

[Brasco]

The real question is why keep remaking all of these movies when pretty soon the younger generation won’t know what die hard, alien or lethal weapon is? Also I don’t care if it’s a male or female lead I would just like some originality

[HueMan]

I mean if it was about Lucy McClane, I can get behind it. The dad passing on the torch to his daughter. But yeah this is not a continuation but a reboot. What's next, She-Man The Motion Picture reboot? Well nevermind I'm gonna shut up now.

[RockinHard]

What's next, She-Man The Motion Picture reboot?

It's the natural next step.

[zodak74]

I often wonder had certain folks had the mindset back then as children that they do as adults today, if when She-Ra was released in 1985 if folks would have been all kicking their mom and dad screaming "what is this pandering nonsense! this is too woke! this is ruining my childhood! no originality! what is this social justice garbage?! agenda, agenda, agenda! etc! etc!"
The thought makes me laugh

[wyldman11]

I often wonder had certain folks had the mindset back then as children that they do as adults today, if when She-Ra was released in 1985 if folks would have been all kicking their mom and dad screaming "what is this pandering nonsense! this is too woke! this is ruining my childhood! no originality! what is this social justice garbage?! agenda, agenda, agenda! etc! etc!"
The thought makes me laugh

While they may not have used those phrases, there were quite a few who thought She-ra was just the girly version of He-man. Even some being upset that the freshly released Horde would tie-in with the girly he-man. But if they were the majority or not is a whole other issue.

But She-ra was also not touted as a reboot, remake but as a continuation of Masters of Universe. Also everything I read in relation to She-ra's preproduction was more hey we should see if girls would like a female lead since they seem to like the male lead version.

For Femme Die hard The brief spot on the news blurb on this didn't really come off as bad as many of the previous attempts at something similar. Of course reboot is often misused in many of these news spots. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual statement from Theron was I would like to do a female lead version of Die Hard.

[Firefly]

Am I the only one who has always thought 3 was far superior to 2?

Haven't watched 2 and 3 in many years, though. Still watch the first often.

Yes, it is much better. Die Hard 2 is a rehash like Home Alone 2 is to its original. Vengence was originally supposed to be a movie called Simon Says, but they ended up adding John McClane to it.

As for a female reboot, I just wish they'd call it something else with no connection to the originals. Hollywood is lazy and just goes for brand recognition.

[VZX]

Yes, it is much better. Die Hard 2 is a rehash like Home Alone 2 is to its original. Vengence was originally supposed to be a movie called Simon Says, but they ended up adding John McClane to it.

As for a female reboot, I just wish they'd call it something else with no connection to the originals. Hollywood is lazy and just goes for brand recognition.

I have not seen them in so long, I mixed them up. But yes, 3 is much better than 2 now that I was reminded.

But brand recognition is money in the bank!

[Sword2Blanket]

It's not an exaggeration when there is precedent.

There is precedent for super hero movies. To say there is a movement of super hero movies would be fair and reasonable.

There is precedent for a movie based entirely on emojis. To say there is an emoji movie movement would be an exaggeration.

Why are you so offended by people being tired of this over fresher movies?

Offense has nothing to do with it. I'm offering a different perspective that you (and others) can consider to whatever extent you like, and also trying to understand the mindset that leads to your perspective as best as I can. With that in mind...

It's not so much about the potential movie as it the possibility of another reboot/rehash/etc when they can do something else instead.

Again, nothing has established this concept has to be a reboot (I'll go into that more later in the post), so let's dispense with that argument as it's not necessarily valid. If this non-existent movie comes to fruition and indeed turns into a reboot, we can revisit that particular issue. With that aside, your position seems to be suggesting one of two things:

A) ALL Die Hard movies should stop because the entire concept is tired and played out at this point and movie goers deserve fresh new ideas
B) Die Hard movies should continue, but a female lead would be terrible (even by Die Hard standards)

I'm not attempting to force you into either of those positions or put words in your mouth, I'm simply saying that a reasonable inference of everything you've said up to this point reads as one of the two. The obvious take is that your position is B, but when pressed on it, you equivocate to more nebulous arguments related to quality and originality in general. However, all such concern seems inextricably linked to a female lead in your posts. If your position was A and quality and originality where at the heart of your concerns, why discuss everything through the lens of sex? It's hard to understand what your actual beliefs are because we're stuck in this circular logic of mutually exclusive positions.

Female Die Hard would be bad because writers are lazy and can't come up with fresh new stories!

So if writers are lazy and can't come up with fresh, new stories, they should just stop making Die Hard movies?

No! They should still keep making Die Hard movies!

So if there are "good" Die Hard movies still to be made, there's no reason why there couldn't be a female lead in them?

Female Die Hard would be bad because writers are lazy and can't come up with fresh new stories!

Oh for the love of...

But yeah this is not a continuation but a reboot

This isn't anything at this point, much less a reboot. People or articles characterizing it as such are simply misleading.

A random fan tweeted:

Lesbian Christmas rom coms are all well and good but what I REALLY want is a Die Hard where Charlize Theron goes on a rampage to save her wife

Charlize Theron tweeted in response:

Where do I sign

That's what the entirety of what this thread is based on.

Even if this were to materialize, nothing about the concept presented would even necessitate an altering of sacrosanct Die Hard lore, much less a reboot.

What's next, She-Man The Motion Picture reboot?

Everyone here knows that a female He-Man "rehash" has existed for 35 years and is beloved by many, many people. Not only that, it demonstrably invalidates the corollary arguments that have been made in this thread. She-Ra existed within the universe of MOTU without any need to reboot or negate existing lore. It simultaneously shared enough lore and themes to justify its place in the MOTU universe, but also had a wealth of originality, provided fresh new stories, and easily stood on it's own artistic merits. If you liked it, it wonderfully complimented something else you cared about; if you hated it, it was easy to ignore completely.

[RockinHard]

And there is a precedent to recast male-leads in franchises with female ones. It's not original, it's often not creative, and when the makers come out and call people names because the movie sucks, it leaves even more of a bad taste, like what what has been happening with Star Wars (the latter calling names part).

This is something many are tired of.

Similarly, many people are tired of reboots in general, when most of those are also bad or far inferior. I can't count how many inferior horror remakes have been made in the last near-twenty years that don't come close to the originals. Only a few have been decent to perhaps better, if not better. It's that SLIGHT chance again.

Because you call out studios' laziness by phoning the movie production in and simply gender-swapping and calling fans names because they don't like it doesn't make one sexist or have issues with females, which is a go-to point of a crowd who bafflingly seem to support an ineffective attempt at female empowerment; I'd personally, and I'm sure many others as I have encountered, would rather have a more effective way to do so, or better yet, make them inspired, interesting characters, which can be done with effort over this haphazard method. Nor does it make you anti-whatever because there is a desire to see fresher, more creative and inspired movies or the 163rd remake/reboot (or more) in the past twenty years.

As stated earlier, in the end, this is corporate greed milking a brand name, not just in the potential case of Die Hard, but in most all these remakes/reboots, gender-swap or not.

[felgekarp]

Genuine question, is Charlize Theron part of the lgbt+ community?

[dan1980]

Genuine question, is Charlize Theron part of the lgbt+ community?

No she is just an ally, so technically she’s not allowed to play an lgbt character, saying no more for fear of wading into the tar

[RockinHard]

so technically she’s not allowed to play an lgbt character

In other words, actors can't fully act anymore unless they are portraying their own race, sexuality, gender, etc. - can't write as a man, or a woman, especially a woman, and can't play someone of a different race, sexuality, gender, or handicap. Otherwise, the hashtags on Twitter will begin, and have proven to work, against those ACTING for a role.