I did a redo here, sorry http://videosift.com/poll/Do-you-consider-the-film-Die-Hard-a-Christmas-movie-1

You forgot one category of vote.

Folks who have never seen it. Folks who have never seen ANY Die Hard movie.

These things seem to continue to ignore Jill Stein.

And in doing so, they miss an important point: Johnson is the "spoiler candidate" for TRUMP. In other words, the chances of votes for Johnson swinging the plurality of votes in a hotly contested state in favor of Clinton are massively higher than swinging such a state into favoring Trump.

Stein is the spoiler candidate for Clinton. But die-hard Democrats should be pleased with her poll numbers being low, which suggests that fewer usually-Democrat voters are looking for an alternative option than usually-Republican voters. In other words, the Democrat party is currently more unified than the Republican party.

...But before patting themselves on the back too hard, they should remember that perhaps the only reason that their historically disliked candidate is more unifying than the GOP option is that he is even MORE historically disliked. A dubious distinction at best.

I think I'll stick with my protest vote (for Stein), thank you very much.

And that's why I stick to the original. Every translation is a dilution of the source. Just go and watch the german dubbed version of Die Hard.

Yeah, Trump is a complete tool. Guilty of all the stuff Maher said about him. Given that kind of "competition", what would the Democrats have to do to get those 20 states to flip their direction?

I can take a stab that that one, Bill -- he's sitting right next to you. If the Democrats had chosen Sanders as their candidate, I guarantee that at least some of those states would have gone blue on election day.

Firm, registered Democrats? They'd all happily vote for Bernie in the general, just like they will vote for Hillary.

Undecideds, moderates, and young people? Drastically more likely to vote for Bernie than Hillary. A huge segment of the voting population is disgusted with the two major choices, and would happily flock to a candidate that has a proven track record of honesty and integrity, instead of the dog and pony show that we have now.

Firm, die-hard Republicans? Maher is right; there is a certain percentage of people that would never vote Democrat. But, I don't think that number is above 50% of the population even in the reddest of red states. But even for many of those people that are completely dissatisfied by Trump, from their perspective Hillary is NOT a better option.


Let's consider how all the arguments against Trump play to that specific audience: (note that the responses are what *they* think, not necessarily what *I* think)

Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill), and "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (Hillary).

Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?

etc. etc.

Hillary goddamn Clinton is NOT going to be seen as a reasonable alternative to Trump to those people. No matter how much he goes off the rails. No matter what crazy, foul, contemptible shit he says or does. No matter how many skeletons you dig out of his closet. Why? Because they are convinced (reasonably or not) that the Clintons have done just as much questionable shit and more, they are perhaps just better at covering it up.

But if the Democrat candidate was Bernie Sanders, I'm sure a lot more of those hard-line Republicans would be way more tempted to vote blue in November.

I agree with this. It's very important that people come together to fight for equality or whatever else they believe is right, but a movement has got to be self aware and self critical otherwise it will end up undermining itself.

Movements that become huge can have little groups forming within them and the outside world sees the actions of what might be an extreme faction for the actions of the whole. And things can become insular, where the members mostly talk to each other and reconfirm each other's worries and problems and things that weren't acceptable to you in a vacuum are ok because it seems like those problems are dominating yours and your friends' entire lives.

But that works regardless of the politics of the movement - from the left or right. So on the one hand you get die-hard gender rights campaigners using inherently sexist terms when arguing with the opposite sex, but you also get kind, considerate people rallying behind a right wing group or message because it starts with phrases like "we've got to look after our own first," but end up with racism and bigotry.

When someone is interviewing another, like when John Oliver interviewed Edward Snowden, two cameras are used so that factual continuity can be maintained.

In the movie Broadcast News, the character Tom Grunick did an extremely powerful interview where he started crying during it. It was later found that he only had one camera with him, so how could he have cut to him crying as the lady spoke... That's why shot/reverse shot interviews are always filmed with two cameras simultaneously.

In movies, there is usually only one camera, they will set up one side of the conversation, film it all the way through, then set up the shot from the other direction, film IT from that direction, taking however many takes each way, then edit the two together.

In the Die Hard example, Rickman was obviously filmed first, and Bochner's ad-lib made a "happy mistake" they got on film.

If Bochner had been filmed first, you would never have seen Rickman's perfect reaction.

...then again, Rickman was a God. He probably could have made the same reaction a couple dozen times after the initial confusion.

I was hoping this was going to answer a question I have asked for a long time but still don't have a clear answer. Is it common to have 2 cameras filming actors simultaneously during a shot/counter-shot scene in a standard Hollywood production, so it's recording their interactions in real time?

Or is it more likely done with one camera, with the actors filmed sequentially and responding to off-camera dialog as they speak their lines. And then the shot/counter-shot are strung together in editing.

Seems to me the one camera would be more logical, as otherwise the lighting resources themselves would have to be doubled and kept out of view. Also I don't ever remember seeing any pictures or footage from a movie set where they have 2 cameras and 2 sets of lights, etc.

The reason I keep asking is that on IMDB in the trivia section you always read some nonsense about somebody's onscreen reaction to some unscripted ad-libbed line being genuine.

Well if they aren't both in the same shot how could it be a genuine reaction if the shot/counter-shot are filmed with one camera at different times? And the dialog may be spoken and recorded hours apart?

Like this scene from the "Die Hard" trivia section:
Hart Bochner's line "Hans... Bubby!" was ad-libbed. Alan Rickman's quizzical reaction was genuine.

They weren't in the same shot, so how can his reaction be genuine when the line may have been ad-libbed several hours earlier or later. If it was ad-libbed at all.

It strikes me as stupid made-up shit that passes for trivia and knowledge on the Internet but wanted to get some opinions on this.

Yes. It was a long, painful slog to excise chingalera from the body. It was, in fact, the reason I started posting, because I just couldn't sit back and watch him make the sift an ugly place with little or no pushback.
Lantern, while I often disagreed with him vehemently, USUALLY didn't devolve into a 5 year old little girl who just had her ice cream taken away, ranting, screaming, cursing, and attacking anyone in earshot. It did happen, but not often. I realized one day that I seemed to be one of the few actually responding to his posts, so I ignored him, and he left soon afterwards. I thought the same thing might happen with bob, but clearly not. I shouldn't be so surprised though....my bad for expecting reasonable, rational, or even adult behavior from the die hard extreme right winger who spends his time on a left leaning site.

It's so mind boggling that people refuse to vote for the other candidate when the other candidate wins.

die hard Hillary fans did it to Obama in '08

I get it that your favorite didn't get the nod, but unless you want the other party to win, you gotta suck it up and "eat the chicken" as Maher puts it.

These are the realities of "first past the post" voting. You're not necessarily voting for the person you want, you're voting against the people you don't want. It's sad, i know, but it's the truth.

Alternative voting would be a decent option. vote for a 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc etc.

OK. I concede that sometimes the later parts of a series can be better than the second one. ;-)

But among the three Nolan Batman Movies, the second one is by far the best.

And nobody would argue the Terminator 2 is better than 3, 4 and 5 (and in my opinion even 1).

Star Trek 2 (The Wrath Of Khan) is still one of the best Star Trek movies.

> Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel.
> Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Back then I thought that DIe Hard 3 was more part of the Lethal Weapon series than a real Die Hard movie, but after 4 and 5, the majority rule makes it clear that Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are not part of the Die Hard series. ;-)

Exorcist 3 was way better than the second movie, although technically it is a sequel to the first.

Mad Max Fury Road was better than... well, all of the Mad Max movies.

Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel. Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country is WAY better than the original, 3, 4, and 5. So sometimes the sequel is good and then it takes 4 more movies before you get a good one in.

James Bond arguably got better with age. Maybe not the most recent ones, but Golden Eye was amazing. Great games can also be spawned from over making a franchise!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is hands down the best of Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. It wasn't just a western, it was an epic civil war movie in the west. And the ending with the Mexican stand off; soundtrack?!?! Hot damn! Not that the "sequel" sucked but the third was the BEST.

I know there are a couple good horror series that had a better third or fourth movie. Any Hellraiser is better than Hellraiser 2, same goes for Halloween. Though I can't say they were ever as good as their originals. It's still a hope I reserve for horror movies that make it past their shitty sequel.

The next Ring might be awesome. "Might." It's had a fairly massive career spanning 4 countries, 12 movies, 2 telvis ion series, 2 video games and a bunch of manga. Movies most people don't even know exist. I think the seventh iteration of the Ring (2002's American Ring) is the best.

And, while it might just technically count, it's worth noting that while i like Gaspar Noe's despair trilogy, his third movie Enter the Void is the only movie in the trilogy I can enjoy watching a third or fourth time. I once recommended his movies and alienated an entire office space. The only movie anyone enjoyed was his third movie.

Ghostbusters 3 will probably be better than 2. Blasphemy!! Hah, we will see. Girl power!

I think Batman also got better because of Nolan. Does that count? I mean, if a franchise goes on that long, it's all just sequels, despite the so-called canon and concept of "rebooting" a FAKE universe.

(Does Harry Potter count as the third movie in the Troll series?)

They used to say the same thing about Trump, but I think the RNC is finally starting to relent and starting to accept Trump even though they didn't want him originally. When it comes to primaries, votes do not matter.

I just don't think it really matters. I think most of the polls have agreed so far that in almost every possible match up....regardless of which republican, regardless of which democrat. Democrat wins.

Palin and Trump may rally the base, but they rally more people to vote against them. If McCain had picked just about anyone else for VP. I think he might have won. I think Palin made a large number of Republicans stay home and a large number of Democrats to come out to vote. I think the only thing that made it a semi close race (popular vote wise, not electorally) was that Obama was black and that made the racists come out in droves to vote against him. Fortunately, racism is slowly slowly dying. I'm also sure there were some die hard Hillary fans that were still pissed that Obama got the nod so they stayed home.

I think Trump is going to be a repeat of that. Islamaphobes and everyone who despises minorities will vote Trump, but more people (Republicans as well) will vote against him. And again, it might be sorta close because whoever will get the Democrat nod, there will be the die hard fans of the other person who will stay home.

That's my take on it so far anyway. It's the Democrats' race to lose. They've been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the past.

Your video, die hard-hans gruber talks to mclane for the first time, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.