Talk:Die Hard

message: Oh..... we should definitely reopen up this can of worms. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think having the Christmas movie is-it-or-isn't-it debate might warrant pulling into its own section with a sub-header within the cultural impact section, and yes I'm commenting this a year later :) SportsGuy17 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNDUE for a once-a-year joke that a minority espouse. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this n-gram of total views since 2018 answers the question of whether readers think it's a Christmas movie. Yippie ho ho ho... Randy Kryn (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas movie? 

message: I count 84(!) uses of the semicolon. This seems rather excessive to me; many of these can probably be full stops. I cannot recall reading another piece of prose with such of a high concentration. Sizeofint (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semicolons 

message: This article boasts that some “copy editor” has worked on it. Well, not one who would get hired anywhere as any kind of copy editor. The article is full of tortured prose that needs cleaning up.
Just one example. The Music section uses the word “song” to apply to themes in Beethoven’s compositions, which is hilarious to anyone familiar with how to write about classical music. This mistake may derive from an over-reliance on the language of modern commercial music software: Spotify, for example, mislabels everything from a Chopin mazurka to a movement in a Charles Ives symphony a “song”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.170.122 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tackling “song”. Now perhaps you could correct “full performance” (which means the entire work is performed in the course of the film, obviously untrue). A more accurate sentence would be, for example, “the references build to a symphonic performance of the theme”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.170.122 (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song?! 

message: This line is in the Plot section: "Meanwhile, seeing another amiss, Powell prepares to leave"
It should be changed to, "Meanwhile, seeing nothing amiss, Powell prepares to leave" Walter Wpg (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done DonIago (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020 

message: Apologies if I have missed it but there doesn't seem to be any explanation of the title of the film - should this be added in? McPhail (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this if there are reliable sources explaining the title. Not sure if it warrants its own section, so perhaps it could be woven in. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

text: What hidden story is there to the title? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This is extraordinary to me - that's almost 200 bucks adjusted for inflation. It's cited to a NYT article which does indeed give this figure, but I just want to make sure, is it possible that was an error? Maybe the home media market really was different back then. Popcornfud (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this Quora reply answers my question. Consider me educated! What a fascinating bit of movie history I never knew. Popcornfud (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I add that kind of thing, I think it is interesting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Die Hard was released on VHS in January 1989, priced at $89.98." 

message: I was surprised by this reversion. It's true that we don't say anything to imply the price was abnormal, but (as the previous talk section demonstrates) that's what a lot of readers are going to assume if we don't provide any context. So I'm not clear on why we wouldn't? I can't find a specifically relevant policy, but there are countless examples of similar clarifications throughout Wikipedia. So , could you please explain your reversion? I've undone it for now, as cited material should not be removed without discussion, but I'm open to being convinced if you can point to a policy that says we actually SHOULDN'T have all those similar examples, etc. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If the price was standard for the time, then why are we talking about it in the article at all? I'm unclear as to the significance at that point. DonIago (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

text: The police to this is WP:NOT#CATALOG - we don't include prices on items unless they are common parts of discussion about that item (eg we generally include the MRSP of iPhones and other consumer products as this is part of a value aspect in critical reviews of the product). Now yes, that $90 VHS was expensive but that seems to be an indication of the expensiveness of VHS at the time of its introduction, not necessarily of Die Hard itself. That would be a factoid over at the VHS article, not on Die Hard (to compare, on Video game monetization, down near the bottom we track the average price of video game media, a notable subject, identify the switch from cartridges to optical media, and there's commentary around that, but the prices are limited to that article, not the games themselves). --Masem (t) 02:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Per the discussion above this one, it's just an interesting factoid for people who aren't even aware what a VHS is, especially when you adjust it for inflation, and it's text real estate is small. I don't feel it necessary to state it is a standard price. Unlike something like Trading Places where it was deliberately priced significantly lower by the distributor to promote VCR sales and there is discussion related to that. I just don't think this is something that needs a greater degree of clarity. And I do believe I mentioned that in my edit summary to some degree, it wasn't a blank revert. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I'm persuaded by Masem's point that this isn't really relevant for this article. It also tends to create confusion. It is interesting but this isn't the place for the information. Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've removed it .Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I did find the information about the price interesting, and went down a bit of a rabbit hole because of that. If you look through the 1988 Sears Wishbook, the vast majority of VHS titles are below $30... although most of the tapes listed are kids' movies, classic movies, nonfiction "special interest" titles, and Dorf on Golf-type stuff. Was the price for Die Hard typical for an adult-oriented, recent Hollywood release? (A reference from January 1987 doesn't really help establish a standard price for January 1989.) I understand that NOTCATALOG may discourage listing the price, anyway, but I'm interested in learning more. Zagalejo (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if Die Hard's VHS was abnormal or not relate to other VHS releases at the time, but if was, and we have non-primary sources to document that, absolutely that's worthwhile to include. I would certainly encourage trying to discover if these exist, but if it seems to be the case that this was the norm for non-children VHS films and not exclusve to DH, then that would likely be hard. --Masem (t) 16:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

text: The thing is, just being interesting isn't enough, it also has to be relevant and clear. I too found it interesting (see previous discussion), but this interesting information should be covered in its proper place. We could put a lot of interesting information this article, like the height of the Eiffel Tower, but... Popcornfud (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not necessarily arguing for anything to be added to the article. I just think this is a fun thing to research. Zagalejo (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: If anyone's interested, I found a CBS Video Club ad that indicates the retail price of Die Hard had already dropped to $19.95 by 1990. (San Bernardino County Sun. March 11, 1990. pg. 118. Available from newspapers.com.) The copy reads, "Just look at what's happened to the prices on videocassettes! Contemporary hits like Twins, Die Hard, and The Accidental Tourist have been reduced from $89.95 to $19.95!" Zagalejo (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This rather sounds like Die Hard's VHS price wasn't exceptional for Hollywood big budget films of the time. If so, however, we might have something to add to e.g. VHS or Videotape format war. Daß Wölf 19:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

text: This sounds like people might be confusing rental VHS for retail VHS retail prices. Even today, a retail DVD will usually sell for 80 to 120$ per tape/disc (one use to find rental-intended discs on Amazon, but last I checked, they are hard to find). This is priced by studios to offset that the tape or video will be rented to multiple people by the rental business who buys it. In contrast, the retail price is usually 16-ish$ reflecting that only one family is expected to utilize the disc/tape. Especially in the '80s, a lot of VHS sales were by rental businesses, this changed as more and more people bought retail. It use to be that if you were a rental business, you had to purchase the rental disc/tape to be compliant with the licensing. In the past decade, that has pretty much vanished as the only real rental business remaining is Netflix's DVD/Blu-Ray-by-mail service (yes, it still exists as on 2021), so it is no longer really enforced. The last Blockbuster, for example, does not usually buy Rental discs, but rather grabs whatever retail disc they can procure, so even for them, the rental licensing is mostly a thing of the past. — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  VHS price 

message: Any idea why this article is subject to so much vandalism today? Is there a post on reddit or something? Seems out-of-the-ordinary. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It was TFA yesterday. Daß Wölf 06:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This is of low importance for American cinema? Seems very wrong and inaccurate to me. Zedd1997 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance rating 

message: WP:PIPE the link "making it character of its own" towards Anthropomorphism. 2601:646:8400:1ED0:3890:8503:2139:77F5 (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The text appears to be easily understandable to a reader. We don't generally add links for the sake of adding links. DonIago (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2021 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion