# Talk:Live Free or Die Hard

The notion that John McClane is fighting bad guys on holiday comes from an earlier spec script about wreck-diving by British writer David Trebilcook. The current story - by Doug Richardson - will revolve around computers and will probably take place in a city environment like the previous two. Scott197827 13/02/2006

snrrrrk* What the hell are Internet terrorists? -Toptomcat 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious: anybody have an idea who will distribute this film in Europe? The last one (Die Hard: With a Vengeance) was distributed by Buena Vista in here, but now I see that this article mentions Warner Bros. Will they be the distributors this time? --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 18:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know where the cast list came from?  I mean, besides Bruce Willis, the only other name announced for a  cast was Justin Long.
I'm pretty sure the director mentioned that NO characters from previous movies would be appearing, which makes an appearance by Bonnie Bedelia highly unlikely.
I've seen nothing about Adrian brody being in this movie. I think a reference is needed for that fact.

Paris Hilton? No mention of it on IMDb, and I can't find any mention of it anywhere else. Removing it, for the time being. (USMA2010 22:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

Insert clean Infobox Film template
Rewrite lead paragraph to basic information -- movie title, year, director, star, release date; place the rest in the body
Create Production section with Development, Screenplay, Casting, and Filming subsections
Use Cite news template for references
Ex: <ref>{{cite news | author=Stax | url=http://movies.ign.com/articles/710/710666p1.html | title=New ''Die Hard'' Helmer | publisher=[[IGN]] | date=[[2006-05-31]] | accessdate=2006-10-25 }}</ref>
Create cast list and put citation next to actor's name (so it looks like "Maggie Q[9]")
Merge title information into Production section, maybe Title subsection if it's that relevant
I'd get my hands dirty doing this, but I have other priorities at the moment. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the synopsis could be properly re-written? It's not in the formal tone required for Wikipedia.
How much did the movie cost to make?

Does anyone else think the title doesn't make any sense? Die Hard made sense because the antagonists of the film were trying to kill the protagonist, who didn't die easily. Die Harder made sense because the protagonist was even harder to kill. Die Hard with a Vengeance made sense because the antagonist didn't die easily and had a grudge against the protagonist, so he died hard with a vengeance. But what the hell does Live Free or Die Hard mean? You can either live free, or you can...not die easily? Is the second option that you're some sort of person who not only hates freedom but will not be defeated easily fighting against it? I agree that Live Free or Die Hard sounds kind of cool and is a pretty clever play on "live free or die", but it doesn't make a shred of sense. DT29 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for everytime Hollywood did something that didn't make sense...  They don't care if it makes sense as long as it puts butts in the seats.  Dismas|(talk) 09:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't make a shred of sense? Come on, it's fairly simple. "Live Free" (without the threat of terrorism, or someone else controlling our every move) or "Die Hard" (fight those who would control our thoughts and actions, and we will not be taken down easily). Not exactly encyclopedic, but the title isn't the mystery you make it out to be. Veracious Rey t • c • r 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
hey, just watching channel 4 (in the uk) and they showed a trailer that called it "die hard 4.0",is this an international title that assumes international audiences won't get the whole state motto reference thing? i didn't know it was a state motto or anything (as an english person myself) 87.112.192.91 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The American title is a play on the New Hampshire motto, Live Free Or Die (in other words, "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"). It was changed for international audiences who might not get it. The "4.0" is a reference to computers, as in "Version 4.0". That said, I didn't like the title to begin with, but I admit it's grown on me.
The name is just a replacement for the earlier one, chosen to go with the movie taking place on the fourth of july weekend.

It has been suggested that the trailer states the release date is July 4th, while the actual website lists a different date. I removed info stating this in the main article. I'm fairly certain what the trailer shows is that the actual time of the film's story takes place on July 4th, and is not a reference to it's release. Veracious Rey t • c • r 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been stated in the Avon Lake Press that after they film here the release date will be delayed due to problems getting EPA rights for explosions in the lake. I don't know but I'm gonna look it up and cite it. Lashman2000 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to confirm who performs the rock-style version of "Ode to Joy" in the latest trailer?  I've been unsuccessful in finding out myself; I'd imagine others are curious.  Brent Butler contribstalk 02:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed versions for comparison:
The film's plot is based on earlier script entitled WW3.com by David Marconi, screenwriter of Enemy of the State. Using a Wired Magazine article entitled "A farewell to Arms" by John Carlin, Marconi crafted a screenplay about a cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S..  After the 9-11 attacks, the project was stalled, only to be resurrected several years later and rewritten into 'LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD'.
Fox eyes 'WW3.com' as tentpole for 1999,
SciFi.com News of the Week #175, another variety article
The film's plot is based on a pitch by Doug Richardson, screenwriter on Die Hard 2, who told Willis his idea while working with the actor on Hostage. In the very early stages of development, the title was Die Hard: Tears of the Sun. Reportedly, Bruce Willis liked the title so much that he convinced executives to drop it so it could be used for his 2003 film Bruce Willis To Make 'Die Hard 4'
OK - so what third-party reliable sources exists to justify either of these? Currently, the source for the Doug Richardson version doesn't appear to back up the statement. Tearlach 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though the way he went about editing the article was wrong, I'm inclined to go with Davimarc's version. He's provided decent sources now. Add to that the fact that he is (claims to be) a credited writer of the movie. It makes NPOV questionable, but I'm not really sure if that's an issue here. Besides the source to the Richardson version doesn't even mention Richardson.--Atlan 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It is Rated PG-13 For Intense Sequences of Violence and Action, language and brief sexual situation

I have questions regarding these 3 actors.
First I added Jeffrey Wright to the cast list because he is listed on IMDB. However, IMDB has been wrong before and I was wondering if anyone new whether he was still on or if he dropped out of the movie.
Second, what is the source for the claim that Zachary Quinto is in the movie. I've seen nothing outside of wikipedia that shows Quinto having anything to do with this movie.
Third, If you watch the trailer you can clearily see Zeljko Ivanek in it. Yet, I've seen nothing anywhere that lists him as a cast member. Not IMDB, Not Wikipedia, nothing. Does anybody no why this is.annoynmous 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a controversy section to the article. This is my first edit to Wikipedia. I felt it was an appropriate section to add. Withteeth 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! At first glance, it looks pretty good for a first edit.  A bit heavy on quotes, but that can easily be addressed. Also, you shouldn't cite blogs as sources, such as slashfilm.com. If you could replace them with the original sources (Variety, IGN), that would be great. All things considered, nice work though.--Atlan (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you added Youtube as a source. Youtube is a collection of user-submitted videos and can therefore not be used as a reliable source.--Atlan (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Even though it's a recording of a live interview with Bruce Willis? Withteeth 05:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The same rules apply to every video. That live interview surely doesn't originate from Youtube. It was put there by a user. That user may have edited the video in some way that cannot be verified. I'm not saying that's the case here, but for that reason Youtube is considered an unreliable source.--Atlan (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is keen, Bruce talking at the premiere has been cut into four sections - can anyone stitch it together and post it as one link?
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06/die_hard_1.mp3
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06/die_hard_2.mp3
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06/die_hard_3.mp3
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06/die_hard_4.mp3
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06/die_hard_6.mp3
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06/die_hard_7.mp3
JulianHensey 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but we don't post mp3 downloads as an external link here. Also, I didn't listen to it, but does it have any value to the Live Free or Die Hard article? If it does and you can find a written version of this occasion from a reliable source and you can work that into the article, that would be great.--Atlan (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Willis certainly appears to have had a few drinks in the video used to source the statement that he was drunk during the interview, but an interpretation of a YouTube video does not a verifiable source make. Noclip 03:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Frikin plotline. (Dorgana 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
It was removed as a copyvio. Feel free to write a new one.--Atlan (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody just added another, which was not very readable, rather just a litany of observations connected by "then it cuts to..."  I've stubbed it down until such time as we have a coherent account of the plot. --Tony Sidaway 09:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
User AshTFrankFurter2 removed the last four paragraphs of the plot description without justifying his edit. Reinstated with "spoiler" brackets around them since they do give the whole movie away. (-- pedant 12:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
The plot right now sucks. Its way to vague. I havent seen the movie but someone needs to add in a actual plot.BlueShrek 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What's with the iphone add at the bottom? Vespid 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, though I couldn't find who added it to see if they spammed any other articles. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section quote from the movie as saying the jet attacking McClane is a F-35C, but the movie also states that it's a marine F-35, therefore making it the STOVL (vertical-flying) capable F-35B made exclusively for the marines. I didn't catch the "F-35C" mention in the movie, so the section is up for debate.
- I support that claim. I can't recall it being called anything but "F-35" in the movie. No C.
- The screen on the computer used to eroneously transmit the "go codes" activating the missles indicate that is is a "F-35C"
I just watched it yesterday night, all I remember was F35. I didn't pay too much attention to the go codes. I loved the movie! 69.108.71.86 00:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to start removing the trivia items and incorporating into the various sections of the article. --Mikecraig 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the following from the Trivia section:

Another mistake shows planes taxiing around an airport as the power goes off despite an earlier reference to the FAA grounding all flights.
The airplanes shown are all marked as foreign airlines such as Air France. It's more logical to assume these were incoming rather than outgoing flights.

The plot synopsis is lifted from TheMovieSpoiler.com without even so much as a credit. I realize that this isn't being done with "malicious intentions," but this is happening so often with recent movie entries that it's becoming ridiculous. Plagiarism, even for "informal" plot summaries, and even with "good intentions," is still plagiarism. I wouldn't even have problems with the copy-paste if there was at least a citation.

Does anyone happen to know the music video of a female singer that was playing in Matt's apartment when McClane was told to go and pick him up.

Flyleaf 'I'm So Sick'

Could anyone find out why the audio track was dubbed over in certain parts of the film?  Especially the scene after the power station is destroyed and Matt is complaining about not winning.  I thought this scene was rather strange as it kept looping the same gestures Matt was making over and over.  Also, Matt was clearly saying something else other than what we were hearing on the dub.

I never noticed anything, although it is not uncommon in movies for the sound to be out of sync in a few places.--Atlan (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this too. The sound was definitely out of sync and Matt was saying something else. Douglasr007 07:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is the poster of above question.  The off-sync was because of the dubbed over 'language'.  When I watched the Unrated DVD, these scenes seemed intact, so I'm assuming the dubbing was because of the strong language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.179.29 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Live Free or Die Hard: A VFX Race Against Time - Something to use.  To log in, use www.bugmenot.com —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the supposed Social Security building (the modern-looking building clad in corrugated galvanized iron) is actually a high school in the greater San Diego area (or maybe Scripps Research Institute). I think I've seen it in another movie as a high school, perhaps Orange County. Can someone identify that location? —Ben FrantzDale 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bingo: Diamond Ranch High School. —Ben FrantzDale 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
They have/had some pretty wild ideas of what a Social Security building is like.
--206.219.94.10 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an NSA facility.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Who deleted the part in the trivia section that listed the weapons used in the movie? It was just there yesterday. Fswiergul 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just interested into why this article is mainly references the North American title of the film, rather than the more widely used international title "Die Hard 4.0". Surely if that's the title used internationally, then it's used more than "Live Free of Die Hard". Should this be changed? Or is it a case of the title of the film in the country it was produced? (I'm not 100% on Wikipedia's policy on things like this) Grinned2death 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention should be made of the iconic catch phrase being censored out for the PG-13 release in the US? --NEMT 05:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a part about the Urdu phrase should be included too. I'd do it myself, but I've gotta go out right now.
 ViperBlade Talk!! 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
When McClane shoots Gabriel at the end I'm pretty sure he said "yippee ki yay mother fucker"... Miles Blues 21:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Negative.  He says "yippie-ki-yay mother f" and then cuts out. --NEMT 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the -ucker portion of the phrase was drowned out by the gun shot. I don't think it was a big deal though, since you hear nearly all of it. I actually thought I heard it until a friend assured me that it was censored. --Asderoff 02:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No matter, we know what he was saying, and it comes down to "if a tree falls in a forest but no one hears it, does it make a sound?" - and just because we didn't hear the "ucker" does not mean he didn't say it. Miles Blues 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No, as far as film scripts go, that's pretty much the definition of not saying something. --NEMT 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The entire catch phrase is said. The "motherfucker" part is said a little bit lower because of the gunshot. Douglasr007 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Negative.  It's just not there. --NEMT 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Negative? I saw the movie yesterday and I heard the "motherfucker" bit. Douglasr007 04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's there. I re-watched that bit, after reading this section, and I heard it -- half of it. It's, "Yippee-ki-yay, mother-[fuc-|BANG]"<--that last part is simultaneous; only the "-ker" bit is actually drowned out by the gunshot. -- CRConrad (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw it last week and I could've swore I heard him say the whole thing. Miles Blues 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not download it illegally and re-play it to your heart's content? Then you'll find out what he said... Not that I've done that, just a suggestion.

 ViperBlade Talk!! 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've analysed the clip repeatedly. --NEMT 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it a possibility that the American version of the movie differs from other versions? Miles Blues 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless it received a rated R (well, equivalent) rating. In which case there would me more "motherfucker"s thrown out throughout the movie. I'm fairly sure the use of the word "fuck" isn't allowed, and the MPAA would certainly slap the movie with an R rating with just one F-bomb. Zchris87v 01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the MPAA allows one "fuck" to be used in a PG-13 movie, as long as it's used as an expletive and not in the sexual meaning: "A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context." [1]. -- 12.116.162.162 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
He definatly said "Yippy-Ki-yay motherfucker in the dvd" so what you people are most likely meaning in theater's version =^-^=--I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should mention about hackers nicks F4rr3ll and War10ck ?

I think that would be too 1337 for this free encyclopedia. --NEMT 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be more, but I noticed at the end of the plot, that it states Ferrel picks up McClane's handgun twice. 68.112.200.252 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Phirephly
He did. Without giving away too much, he tried to be clever and had to drop the gun; later there is a distraction, and he recovers the weapon. Due to editing, it's not made clear where he hides it.

I've found a very interesting article on Pop Politics [2] here about how the movie reflects on sexism and racism in America. In the beginning, it links back to another article from the same magazine that details how the movie defends old fashioned ideals through usage of archetypes. In addition, throughout the article it links to other publications analyzing the film. I think this source could set up a nice picture of the cultural impact and significance of LFoDH. Blueaster 23:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I doubt Mark Bomback worked with much of that. --NEMT 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The article claims that the word "fuck" is heard in the movie twice, but the cited source says no such thing.  And, a viewing of the movie reveals that "fuck" is not in the movie twice, but rather a gun-shot-censored "motherfucker" is used once.  This should be corrected, or somebody should find a source that actually makes the "two fucks" claim.  69.64.3.12 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Derek

You're fuckin' right. :-) Nightscream 03:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you put up a link to the site that gave out this claim? Kylee20051 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a film template for director Len Wiseman and included it on this article. Evolutionselene 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:LFoDHPoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The single disc Unrated version of the film was released in widescreen and also a fullscreen edition. With the initial release of the widescreen version, there was a problem with most of the special features left off of the release even though the back box cover indicated that they were present. The music video and making-of video were left off unintentionally, yet they are present in the fullscreen version of the film. Site References: http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_13571.html , http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22Live+Free+or+Die+Hard%22+%2B%22missing+special+features%22&btnG=Google+Search .
I posted the above YET again and YET again it was removed because the admin claims it was not a reliable source. Since when does reliable sources include only the national media?!
If you click on the Google link, you will find several people the world over who have had problems with the Widescreen edition of the movie not containing the special features. Are they ALL having delusions and suffering mass hypnosis? I myself own the Widescreen edition and can honestly testify that it does NOT have the special features as is listed on the back of the dvd case.

It doesn't appear to be that notable, and in that case, shouldn't be included. If there were more widespread mentions in reliable sources, I'd have no problems with mentioning it. However, it looks like it was a limited problem with the DVD, and not really that important to mention in the article. If there was major controversy or a large loss of sales, etc. then it may be another story. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though it is supposedly only a limited few, which from what I read may have been more than you think, what difference does it make? Small indications in history are still noted, regardless of their size and scope. You don't work for Fox studios do you? Besides that, what do you mean to say that 'you' yourself would have included it? Isn't Wikipedia designed at its core to be an open community of worldwide material that is edited and shared by any and everyone and not a select few? Any other way and it seems more of a communist dictatorship of words and information in which the subjects are told they can share in the wealth, but in reality they are just that, subjects who are told their place and the government or in this case, the 'senior' editors knows best. (And no, I am not saying you are a communist, so please don't take offense to that. Just a play on words.)  In closing, the missing special features on the 'select' widescreen editions still happened, is still a fact and should be noted as occurring.
How dare you call me a communist! Just kidding, and no, I don't work for Fox Studios (I'd save a lot of money on DVDs if I did!). I only mentioned that I would have included it if I would have stumbled across anything about it while researching for the article when working on it a few months ago. I'm not declaring that I know more about you on the topic, but am just pointing out that it would need to have more reliable sources to include it in the article now that it has reached GA status. I'm not trying to hide errors that occurred with the DVD nor promote them excessively. I just want to ensure that the quality of the article is maintained with reliable sourcing with notable events. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:

The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must touch upon every major point/heading covered in the body of the article, which should necessitate about two paragraphs worth of material for an article of this size. Currently, for example, there is not sufficient information regarding the "production" section of the article.
I expanded it to three paragraphs, let me know if you want to be expanded/reworded further. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Early into the DVD commentary for the film, both Wiseman and Willis note a preference for Die Hard 4.0, and subtly mock the Live Free Or Die Hard title." (Script) It's fine to use DVD commentary for a citation, but it still needs to be cited properly. You can see a lot of The Simpsons episode GAs for how to do this properly.
I was going to add a citation for this later when I actually was able to listen to the commentary (hopefully I have time over the Christmas break), but I added a citation template for the DVD, let me know if you wanted formatted differently. I also listened to the first five minutes of the commentary and added another quote within the rating section if you want to look that over. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs as they cannot stand alone.
The only two-sentence paragraph I could find was within the visual effects section so I added a few more statements using the same source. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The Video Game section needs to be either expanded or merged somewhere else, as three sentences are not sufficient for their own Level 2 heading.
There currently isn't any other information that I could find online yet so I merged it into the DVD release section. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ref #22 is dead. You know this already, but you still need to have an "inactive since" date.
I added an inactive notice in the title, let me know if it needs to be edited further. I'll keep checking it occasionally to see if the Internet Archive has a copy.--Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Refs #35 and #36 are the same (at least in prose content) and, if so, should be merged.
Merged, didn't realize both had the same quote. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You say that Ref #44 comes from JoBlo.com, but it doesn't.
I used copy and paste when adding the citation template and forgot to change the publisher; fixed. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ref #45 doesn't cite what it's supposed to.
It appears that the website was updated for the December releases, so I fixed the link to go back to the November releases. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which time it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Will get to it right now. --Nehrams2020 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
We all suffer from the reviewer's curse – that which we tell everyone else to do is what we forget to do with our own GAs (I've done it on about half of mine). Anyhow, everything looks great now and I will passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,
I've added to the german version of the Live Free or Die Hard Wikipedia article a paragraph about product placement.
I just found this one:
Gears of War: In the beginning of the movie a boy is playing the console/computer game "Gears of War" shortly before the house explodes. Later, during a visit in Freddy's(German version)/Warlock's house you can see the words "Gears of War" on a monitor in the background.
I don't know the english version of the movie, but if you see the same there, it could be worth to add the info about the product placement in the english article too?
Cheers from Berlin & sorry for my english, Onetwo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.115.223 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

seems pretty relevant in a few scenes, could this be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifried (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 

The line in the article which states "However, the Live Free or Die Hard DVD is incompatible with Mac OS X." is absolutely false. I have the dvd and I have Macs that run OS X yet somehow all of the DVD features work just fine. The DVD also works just fine under Linux.  
T3chn0gr3p (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)T3chn0gr3p

I was reading the 'Cast and characters' section of the article, and the descriptions for both Lucy and Farrel say that they fell in love with each other by the end of the film.  Isn't that breathing a little bit too much into it?  I mean obviously, yeah, they come out of the whole thing interested in each other, but to say that they're "in love"?  I think some definite rewording is needed here. --TwilightDuality (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The plot subsection includes the sentence: "Thereafter, all the unnamed hackers are killed by planted explosives". Is that actually confirmed onscreen? Just watched the movie (DVD, international version) and all we see is people's computers exploding when the Delete key is pressed, following some computer-case camerawork strongly suggesting this is caused by a virus. Yes, this is profoundly stupid and I wish it *was* planted explosives. I fear, though, that this is Hollywood being silly. After all, apparently you Americans have your gas piped into your cookers already on fire, saving valuable ignition buttons. :) Dantheman123 (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like they planted explosives under the desk and the virus just triggers it. 68.49.172.3 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The C4 Block was inside the computer, inactive. The virus simply armed the device, while causing severe lag to the on screen images, causing them to hit the delete button... which was the key rigged to detonate the C4 block. Unlikely, yet totally possible. 8:34, 6 October 2010.

A Globalize/USA template was added to the Rating section of this article quite a while ago; however, it doesn't look like there has actually ever been any discussion regarding why this section needs to be improved and what additional information should be added.  The template reads "The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject."  I presume this was added because the section discusses the MPAA rating of this film, and does not necessarily include information about the film's ratings internationally.  Considering the fact that this is an American film and the primary purpose of this section is to discuss the film's MPAA rating with respect to the MPAA rating of the previous films in the Die Hard franchise, I don't see any need to change this section and feel that the Globalize/USA template can be removed.  -- JohnnyGrungetta (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That it is an American film doesn't matter, because it was internationally released. I do think the rating issue was mostly an American affair and not an international one, so I agree on that basis that the tag can be removed.--Atlan (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added information on the UK rating of the film and removed the template. Zarcadia (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The main plot of this movie is a complete rip off of the anime "You're Under Arrest: The Motion Picture", premiered in 1999.  The only different might be the villain in Die Hard is much more, well, villainous, and the scale of the attack is much bigger(Tokyo VS USA).  Anyone have reliable sources stating the two are awfully similar to a point which even if it is not copied from the anime, they have the same concept? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. "Live Free or Die Hard" and "You're Under Arrest: The Motion Picture" are hardly the only two productions to use this same essential concept.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
If you had done a little more research as to the origins of this movie, you would have found out that it is an adaption of a story called "A Farewell to Arms", which featured in Wired in 1997. So the original story Live Free or Die Hard is based on, preceded the anime. So myth busted. ;)--Atlan (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In fact, I have done the research and the adaption of A Farewell to Arms did not seem to have the villain in it, it is more or less serving as the villain's warning, or at least part of it.  I did not thoroughly read that article, I will admit that much, but at a glance, the whole thing is nothing more than a summary of what is possible and something needed to be done and why not much was done.  On the contrary, "You're Under Arrest: The Motion Picture" tell of a former police officer, which warned the Police department about a full on cyber and terrorist attack against the city of Tokyo, and have a full plan for such an attack designed as an exercise so that the Police will have the skills to counter such an attack.  The department find this person to be out of his mind and think that such an attack is unlikely.  Basically this guy came back out after hidden for a few years, and used the whole exercise to launch an attack.  The details of the two movies are of course different, at least Bruce did not use paintball guns to take out terrorists with a senior superintendent of the Police.  However, the main plot about the villain are basically the same, the warnings are also the same, only their positions and scales are different.  Yes, they are not the only two productions to use the same essential concept of launching a cyber attack to shut down the function of a city/country, or even the more baseline concept of hacking. For example, the 1989 novel Gundam Sentinel already have a plotline of hacking into the enemy's weapons and crashing them on the moon.  However, the concept of having a person that used to work for the government, then because his warning was not well received, and somehow got kicked out, performed the essence of that particular warning and got serious results from it surely should be much less.  That is my concern. If there is a common concept article for the two movies to have a similar plot, so be it, but "A Farewell to Arms" is not that article, since it is focused on the cyber attack and not the how did this villain knew all those loopholes? because this villain used to work for the government to find out all these loopholes. kind of article.  In fact, the concept might not even be the cyber attack kind, You're Under Arrest have both cyber and physical attacks in its plot, I do not doubt there maybe really old stories that tell of a former officer from the police or military or agency, knew of the physical loopholes and infiltrated bases or buildings of such department.  Yet the truth is that the two movies have too much similarities on that part of the plot, and a search from the net resulted in quite some fans from English, Japanese and Chinese communities commenting on such issue, so I wonder if any reliable sources exists.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You have answered your own question. You have searched the web for this supposed similarity and all you could find was fan speculation. I've been in touch with writer David Marconi a view years back. I don't exactly have him on speed-dial but I guess I could ask him about it. Personally, I think it is a stretch to link the 2 movies and believe it's just a coincidence.--Atlan (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, even so, it would be good to have reliable sources stating the similarity and to clarify its only a coincident.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
When you find them, let us know. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
There are less (and less) original movies and music than anyone thinks. Humans are very similar, and when they hear or read something, the brain processes it in a similar way. I myself wrote a story which copied novels I had never read, one which was written before I was born, without knowing it until long after the fact. Most modern musicians unintentionally copy music they've already heard and think it's "new" but it sounds "right" because they've already heard it, their brains have processed and stored and reinterpreted it and the musician thinks they came up with it, but they really didn't.  Yes, Led Zeppelin deliberately stole blues riffs and Yardbirds songs/ No, Green Day are not that clever and "borrowed" some things they overheard. Yes, George Lucas "stole" Star Wars from every film ever made (and Star Trek 09 was a "tribute" to Star Wars/ No, Die Hard 4 did not copy an obscure anime that middle aged Americans would never have heard of.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The disambiguation page for "fire sale" says that the hacker use of this term was coined in this movie. Is there any source for this?  I am sure the concept itself is much older.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Live Free or Die Hard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115204104/http://www1.phillyburbs.com:80/pb-dyn/news/80-11272007-1447129.html to http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/80-11272007-1447129.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Live Free or Die Hard. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/25/entertainment/et-stuntmen25
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Live Free or Die Hard. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101085004/http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/cube/diehardvendetta to http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/cube/diehardvendetta
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joblo.com/dvdclinic/release_dates.php?month=November&year=2007
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1686244_1692085,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)