Man, I'm suuuper late to this party....
Anyways, Die Hard is and is not a Christmas movie at the same time. And it depends on your definition what makes a Christmas movie.
I'm gonna take an insane detour here that'll make sense.
Is Star Wars Episode 4 a science fiction movie?
That setting is futuristic, sure, must be sci-fi then. Lasers, Spaceships, Robots, the works. The checklist is done. Sci-Fi.
But what are the themes it touches upon, what is the story?
A young farmer's boy (naturally an adoptred orphan) named Luke is dragged into a rebellion against an evil king (Palpatine) by accident. When the boy get's hold of a pretty princess' (RIP Carrie Fisher) message to an old ally and menthor (Obi) through the fault of her two comic-relief servants (Robot-slaves), he decides to seek the adventure he's yearning for. He finds the old man (by fucking up) and both seek the next harbor to board a ship to join the resistance. The hire smuggler/pirate/bandit/nerfherder Han and his foreign friend Chewie and cross paths with the black knight Lord Vader, the evil kings enforcer. Hijinks ensue, princess rescued, the magic castle/ship/train of the evil king get's destroyed and everyone gets a medal.
What's exactly sci-fi here?
That could play out in medieval times. Or ancient greece. Or the wild west. Or on Christmas.
The setting and the genre are two different things and both determine what you'll label a story with.
Alien is a horror movie, a slasher. Aliens is a war movie. Alien³ is a horror movie of the animal-gone-maneater kind. Alien: Resurrection is a disaster movie (hihi).
They're all sci-fi, like Star Wars. Because of the setting.
Now look at Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 2 Episode 9 'The Measure Of A Man'.
Lasers, spaceships, robots, the usual. What is it about?
A Robot who's so sophisticated that he has to go to trial to prove he's not property but a real boy. Sure, you'll say, I've seen Pinocchio and I can see african men argue the same stuff in the 18th century. The point of the story is not only that is humanity is questioned, the point is he's an artificial lifeform. The question is not only 'What makes you a person?' but also 'When does artificial intelligence become an artificial person?'
That shit won't work in a setting without spaceships and robots. That's sci-fi because of its story.
So, setting and story are both what makes you label a movie a certain way but they're not the same.
Die Hard. Happens on Christmas. Could be Thanksgiving too. Setting interchangeable.
Story? Doesn't contain any christmas-related themes beyond two estranged family members become closer again. That could happen at a funeral as well.
I'm in my mid-thirties and I love Die Hard. It's one of the best 80's action movies. I can watch it anytime and I've seen it at least 20 times (noit joking here). But mostly in the summer. But I understand the question and its diverse answers perfectly well.
Die Hard is a christmas movie if it feels like one to you. For me, Lord of the Rings (especially Fellowship) feels like a Christmas movie to me. I've seen them all in theatres in December, I watched them on VHS and Blu-Ray only in December so far. They have fuck all to do with the occasion but this year was the first one I didn't watch any of them in December. And I feel I missed something this year. I'm not sure I can watch them at this time of the year.

I thought he was about to get punched there at the end. Good one! *promote *comedy woodshop hijinks!

They do this quite a lot don't they? At least I remember reading an explanation to this behaviour that basically boiled down to "teenage male killer whale hijinks".

Your video, Daddy Left Alone with Infant Leads to Facial Hair Hijinks, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 15 Badge!

I see two possibilities here. Well, three I suppose, but I the odds of his father having actually had made a huge change in his personality are vanishingly small.

1) It's a fine example of how selective memory can be. We tend to remember the events that support our beliefs about a person...think he's a monster, you'll remember the bad things...think he's a saint, you'll remember the good.
and/or
2) It's a great example of how limited is the understanding of a child. My neighbors growing up were a family of five boys, the three youngest were my constant companions and best friends. Their father scared the shit out of us younger kids. Mean, authoritative, and far too knowledgeable about the hijinks we'd been up to. It wasn't until I was in my thirties that I actually got to know the man and found him to be none of those things. "Mean and authoritative"...only as much as he had to be to raise such a group of hellions. And he was so knowledgeable about what we'd been up to, precisely because he could remember his own youth and put himself in our heads.

I'd be interested in how Burr ended up explaining the "change in his father" to himself...and I'd be even more interested to hear his father's view on this story.

Racist idiot baits fundamentalist idiots, and the world keeps getting slightly worse...

Also @artician, no, this isn't a mock-up. Vilks was invited to hold a lecture on freedom of speech at Uppsala university, and to illustrate that he chose to show part of Sooreh Hera's photo series 'Allah ho gaybar'. Since everybody knew he was a racist asshole who deliberately wanted to provoke Muslims, a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims who wanted to be deliberately provoked showed up at his lecture. Idiots met idiot, and combusted.

Oh and since he'd been getting death threats for his previous hijinks (depicting the prophet Muhammad as a dog), the cops were on hand for this occasion.

The act is obviously inappropriate, but it's how he reacts that gets people confused. By him presenting it as if it's no big deal, the people around him begin to doubt their own moral standards, which in my opinion is pathetic.

Just because the guy acts like it's nothing doesn't change the fact that he sent inappropriate pictures to his employees, and exclusively to women. One of the host makes a comparison between this guy and Anthony Weiner and says he's different because Weiner was trying to have an affair while this guy isn't. Where the fuck did he come up with that bullshit. It's the same exact motive except one guy was ashamed while the other guy is putting on an act as if it's no big deal.

What bothers me most about this segment is that the hosts are deeming the man's action as 'cool' and 'awesome'. How naive can you be? Holy Shit.

The hosts find this amusing and not a real issue. They don't see the fact that this man has just sent naked pictures of himself to his female coworkers. This is such an obvious sexual harassment case that a blind man can point it out for you. He's objectifying women as sexual objects by presenting himself as one, that they need to witness his sexual prowess whether they like it or not.

And TYT is suppose to be a show about pointing out social and political justice... Right. I'm especially disappointed with Ana Kasparian.

Creepy Old Man Hijinks 1 : 0 Female Dignity

I think they should have kept the setting more contemporary. The whole "cultural mainstays of yesteryear in modern fish out of water situations" is a comedic dead-horse to me. I mean, Snooky, really?

I also sort of get annoyed when they take things from the past and stick them in a clearly 'current time' setting. My overall preference is for a movie to be designed in such a way as to be relatively 'timeless'. When you make a movie in such a way that it constantly spotlights a subject or idea from a very specific modern time period then it becomes VERY obvious and then the show becomes dated very quickly as time goes on. The end result is that a good movie that would have otherwise been a 'classic' ends up seeming very cheesy. I think the Stooges movie would have been better off avoiding that kind of thing. Just have the Stooges there, keep the setting vague and non-specific in terms of its period, and let the hijinks ensue.

That being said - I loved seeing Snookie get poked in the eyes... Give her a few triple-slaps while you're at it, Moe.

Thanks. I knew something was wrong but I was too lazy to go looking to fix it.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
hijinks or high jinks

hijinks or high jinks

Yeah, I wanted to post this but came to the same conclusion.

I'm glad it made Top15 though. I have been telling this story repeatedly. It is so cool I can't hardly stand it.

Talk about hijinks!
The guy who figuted out how to screw with this vote knew that the Reps would manage to avoid the embarrassment. So after getting permission from the Dem leadership, he stayed silent. Five minutes before the vote was to take place, he sent out a blackberry text saying 1) vote late 2) vote present. Then he sent folks out onto the floor to explain.

The Reps didn't see it coming. They had to scramble to avoid having this super conservative budget pass.

Seconds after it was defeated, the head of the some conservative Rep committee tweeted something like "ah, too bad, we tried to get it passed, we really did, maybe next time."

For those who blather on about the liberal press -- I looked for this story in the NYTimes the next day -- wasn't there.

Besides the joy of Reps getting egg on their face, there is the positive benefit that the Reps will perhaps be a bit more careful in the future -- the Dems have figured out a strategy to expose the lie and the rift inherent in the deep split in the Rep party.

This is so much fun, I can't hardly stand it.



>> ^xxovercastxx:

The story in the description is interesting, but none of it comes through in the video so I can't see any reason to vote for this.

@dystopianfuturetoday thanks for the offer, but we already got a sound designer on this project. And it is fun.

@rottenseed Have you ever known me to be educational? Nah, it's gonna be a tom & jerry style game. Hijinks ensues.

Oh I totally disagree, I remember countless times Top Gear got a car from a manufacturer and they end up totally trashing it on the show. The BMW X6 was reviewed in this very episode I believe and they hated it. And Clarkson is the best at this, he may totally hate the car, totally not endorse it but still say its stupidly fun to drive.

Furthermore Top Gear has some of the best camera crews and editors around, they put alot in the production of each segment. I think they over did it but you watch any of their other stuff and you will see they always try to get the segments a distinct visual style that is different every time.

The magazine itself has more consumer minded reviews, the show I see as a more of a platform for hijinks and really amazing cars like the LFA and Veyron.

>> ^conan:
>> ^jimnms:
When did Top Gear start using cheesy computer graphics?

they always have been massively sponsored and subjective in their messages, but i agree, this is a new dimension of bought motor "journalism". it is so annoyingly obvious that they didn't do that on their own but with help from some guys of course not connected to Lexus cough cough .
top gear is incredibly funny, especially when they break stuff (clarkson dvds etc) but my PR senses start tickling when they praise something.
...and i miss Tiff :´-(

This would be funnier if (1) the guys looked alike and (2) they considered the medical history aspect.

This is a child's life.

Sometimes hijinks aren't.

hijinks!