GCRN WarZ – Episode 05 – Die Hard vs Lethal Weapon

Geekcastradio .com presents GCRN Wars Two geek

topics will be challenged The ultimate battle

will come to pass One shall stand One shall fall

It's Christmas Eve in L .A. But a team of terrorists.

You want money? What kind of terrorists are you?

Who said we were terrorists? Have their own holiday

plans. And I'm telling you, you're just going

to have to kill me. Okay. We do it the hard way.

But the one thing they didn't plan on was New

York cop John McClane. Got invited to the Christmas

party by mistake. Who knew? He's an easy guy

to like. He's the criminal's worst nightmare.

A cop who enjoys the danger. No guns, no jiu

-jitsu, just bring him down. Do you really want

to jump? Well, then that's fine with me. Come

on. Wait, what do you mean? Wait a minute. He

was ready to retire. Now, he's going to wish

he had. Gun! Raj, meet your new partner. New

partner? But these guys can just stand each other.

What you got in there? Boyan Smith. A lot of

old -timers carry those. The bad guys don't stand

a chance. meet the weapon. You ever met anybody

you didn't kill? Well, I haven't killed you yet.

Hello and welcome to episode 5 of GCRN Wars.

I am one of your hosts, Optimus Solo, and joining

me is Steve Megatron Phillips. Hello. Hello.

And what does TFG1 stand for today? Mike, hello.

Hello. And today we are tackling yet another

topic, as you have seen in our past Wars episodes.

It's all about two opposing topics that are somewhat

similar, battling each other out. We've had Star

Wars versus Star Trek. We've had Thundercats

versus Silverhawks. We had Flintstones versus

the Jetsons. And today we are kind of going away

from the animated world. into two beloved film

franchises, and that is Die Hard and Lethal Weapon.

Which franchise is superior? Opening thoughts

before the bell rings, Mike. I love both these

series. Granted, as I've said before in other

podcasts, I'm getting kind of sick of Die Hard

4, or Die Hard 4 .0, because of the fact of...

FX and TNT, and everybody shows that movie so

many times. If you want to call it by its actual

name, Live Free or Die Hard, I still think, like

Bruce Willis had said, he thought that Die Hard

4 .0 was a better title than Live Free or Die

Hard. So I call the movie Die Hard 4 .0. But

I love those. I love the Die Hard movies, all

four of them. I have not seen the fifth one yet.

Lethal Weapon. I love Lethal Weapon. I think

it's kind of an unfair advantage to Die Hard

to be comparing it against Lethal Weapon because

one franchise has five, the other has four. I

think maybe we should have waited until we get

– if we ever got a Lethal Weapon five. That would

have been waiting forever because they've said

that they're not going to do that. I know. I

know. Well, after all, Mel Gibson has gone crazy

to this point. So, hey, rigs in real life. You

know, and for those people that maybe haven't

watched our other episodes, or maybe they have

and they question things here, I just want to

kind of throw out there that when we put these

groups together, it's 50 % serious and 50 % fun

in my head when I'm coming up with the categories

that we're going to compare. You know, some of

them are like definitely things that should be

compared about the franchises. But I usually

try to throw some fun stuff in there or some

just kind of like a little bit more relaxed things

in there. You know, I know when we talked about,

what was it, Silverhawks and Thundercats, we

compared the logos and stuff like that. So, you

know, there's a mixed bag of stuff we're comparing.

So don't be like all crazy about how can you

compare that. topic or whatever. Some of it's

meant to be serious, some of it's meant to be

somewhat fun in our quest to find the superior

franchise. Steve, any thoughts before we get

the match underway? On the one hand, I agree

that it may be stacked in Die Hard's favor only

for the fact it has five films, but quantity

does not necessarily mean quality, especially

from what I've heard from the fifth film lately.

But also at the same time, it's one of those,

you know, between the two, I mean, you have an

action comedy and then you have more of an action,

you know, just regular action movie. And between

the two, they're kind of hard to compare, but

at the same time, you can kind of, you know,

easily compare them because, I mean, they're

huge from back in their day. somewhat still hold

up today and they both came out in very similar

time periods um their their lifespan was kind

of if you just take the four movies for each

one and not count this fifth one i mean a lot

of their movies almost coincided year -wise and

you know when when we were growing up these were

kind of as far as like more of an adult or you

know Older teen, college age people, these were

two of the go -to franchises. It's not like there

was nothing else around that was doing these

types of films, the quality level, the number

of sequels that they had. So they kind of like,

I don't know, even though I 100 % agree that

one is more leaning towards the action side of

things and one leans more towards a little bit

of comedy. I think a lot of people kind of put

these two franchises in the same grouping when

they think about them in their head. And I did

try to, as much as I can, knowing that there

was five movies for one and four for the other,

most of the categories, the number of movies

that came out are not going to affect the matchup

here. We tried to steer away from that as much

as possible. What I found very glaring about

the two franchises is you have one starting in

87, the other starting in 88, and one ending

at a certain year and the other continuing through.

So I'm not saying that Die Hard is a clear -cut

winner, but it shocks me going through this,

just kind of glimpsing over the script and over

the topics we'll be doing that, hey, this movie

came out, in 1993 and oh this movie came out

in 2000 you know it just the year difference

kind of i was like whoa because there's two totally

different ways to look at both of these franchises

as far as like when you know we always talk about

the stuff date itself i i don't know it was just

weird for me looking at the just going through

the categories I can kind of see that. Like I

said, a lot of the films, the first one was only

a year apart. The second movie, they both came

about a year apart. There was a three -year span

between when they both did the third chapter.

It wasn't until they got to the fourth one that

you really see a big gap. There was a nine -year

difference between when the fourth Die Hard came

out. compared to when the fourth Lethal Weapon

came out. The Lethal Weapon was a more compact

series. They kept it pretty steady. The biggest

gap was that six -year gap between three and

four, whereas you had a 12 -year gap in between

the third and fourth Die Hard. Like you said,

it's not saying it's good or bad. I could see

some people saying that it's better that all

four of the Lethal Weapon films came out while

it was relevant, while people still had that

franchise on their mind um or some people could

say well it's diehard because it had more longevity

or something like that so i mean i can see you

kind of go both ways on that one uh go ahead

oh good i'm sorry go ahead no continue well now

that i've gone back and re -looked through the

script we are this is essentially we will be

comparing the entire franchise of each to each

other and deciding on which franchise is better.

But what I'm now noticing is we're only really

talking about four films. Right. The fifth film,

it just came out. Right, so it's not going to

take a big part of this. I haven't seen it. I

don't think... Steve, have you seen the fifth

Die Hard? I've kind of glanced through it when

I downloaded it. I have yet to actually watch

it, though. Kevin, have you seen it yet? Okay,

so out of the three of us, Kevin has seen it,

Steve has glanced through it, and I have not

yet seen it. So I'm okay with us doing this because

now that I see that it's pretty much four versus

four. Right. So that, yeah. Anyway, I do think

if it ever did happen, you know, we always talk

about, oh, if they did a continuation of this.

We're kind of talking about that with Ghostbusters

3. Oh, a continuation where the main Ghostbusters

have had kids, and their kids take over. I honestly

think if Mel Gibson hadn't gone crazy and nuts

and whatever else, and Danny Glover's still doing

stuff. I think he's on the Fox series Touch regularly

as a character, so he's still doing stuff. I

think it's possible for a Lethal Weapon 5. I

don't think it'll be a Richard Donner -directed

film, but I think it is possible for someone

to take the franchise. and do a fifth movie.

Let's hope it's better than the winter. Well,

at one point they were going to reboot the franchise,

and it was going to have completely different

actors playing the role of Riggs and Murtaugh.

Oh, see, no. Oh, no, no. All right, let's take

that. Well, it's like Police Academy. They're

going to try and do that same thing there. Yeah.

All right, so what is the first category, sir?

All right, let's ring the bell and get this battle

underway. Before we get to some of the actual

movies, I think it only fitting that you compare

the iconic stars of each movie, and I know, Mike,

you might have some issues with this, but the

iconic stars when you think Lethal Weapon and

Die Hard are John McClane and Martin Riggs. Bruce

Willis. And Mel Gibson. The only reason why I

have a slight issue with this is because of the

way that the first two films were marketed. Die

Hard is one man just stuck in a totally fucked

up situation. Lethal Weapon is a buddy cop. serious

buddy cop film where you meet these two characters

in Riggs and Murtaugh, and Murtaugh is pretty

much the straight man. Riggs is pretty much the

crazy. So to me, the Lethal Weapon franchise,

Danny Glover and Mel Gibson are the main stars.

But this is more just comparing these characters.

Right, right. I see what you're doing with this.

So that's my work around here. So who is the

superior? out of John McClane and Martin Riggs,

I guess, is how it goes down. Now, I can kind

of see it a couple different ways. You know,

John McClane is against all odds. You know, it

doesn't matter how many things you throw against

him. It doesn't matter how stacked things are

against him. He finds a way through it, and he

just cannot be stopped. Riggs, although a lot

of that same stuff could be said about him, He

is, you know, known for his basically being crazy,

first of all, just being off his rocker, but

at the same time being so crazy that he's not

crazy at all. You know what I mean? It's like

he's so crazy, but he always knows what he's

doing, basically. I don't know. I kind of see

it a couple different ways. If we were going,

like, who's the tougher, you know, like... more

resilient action star, I could see myself siding

with John McClane. If we're talking about whose

character is deeper and whose character has more

levels to him, then I would shift to Riggs because

he's got that crazy side, but he's got a lot

going on. He deals with all kinds of death close

to him. on top of being the resilient kind of

action star that he is. So, I mean, his character

has more depth in my mind. So I'm kind of undecided

on this one. Mike, what do you think about these

two characters? John McClane is, in the first

film, he's all cop. That's, you know, we see

him. Going out to L .A. to see his kids, to meet

with his ex -wife. When the situation happens,

he's all cop, he's all alone. Sure, he has Carl

Winslow as backup outside, but it's one of those

things where he is that lone, not necessarily

lone gunman, but a lone police officer. He's

very much a serious type of character. Sure,

he has funny lines, and sure, he has lines that

make us laugh, but he's not like Riggs. Basically,

you take a coin, and these guys would be two

sides of a coin. They're so different. On the

one hand, I can see McLean getting it because

of his badass, but at the same time, as you said,

with the emotional... Kind of like the whole

backstory throughout the franchise of Lethal

Weapon coming out about Riggs' wife and everything

else, and this is why he is the way he is. The

difference between the two is that McClane is

not suicidal, Riggs is, at least in the first

films. Right. McLean has never been suicidal,

well, up until the action winter blockbuster

Die Hard 5, but we're not talking about that.

But anyway, it's one of those things where it's

two very distinctive characters. If I was just

going on, like, picking a favorite out of the

two, I don't think I could. As far as an overall,

like, you know, somebody put a gun to my head,

I have to choose. Who's the better character?

I got to go with Riggs. He's more dynamic. He's

more well -rounded. You want to know more about

him, whereas McClane, you want to be a fly on

the wall in whatever situation he's in. Maybe

not because of all the gunfire, but you want

to be able to see, oh my god, it's John McClane.

What the fuck is he going to do now? Whereas

Riggs, you really get into his head. So, I don't

know. Steve, what do you think? See, I agree

with both of your guys' points on that whole

situation, which makes it even more difficult

for me to decide this. Well, for one, you've

got John McClane's hard -ass, typical... Well,

it wasn't back then, but it is now. Typical action

hero. And then you have, like you guys said,

Riggs, who's... suicidal in the first one but

he's kind of nuts and you know between doing

like the you know three stooges thing and the

across his face you know and uh you know just

doing all kinds of weird shit but um on the one

hand you have you know john mclean thrust into

all these funky situations and then you have

you know Riggs just kind of, you know, shit just

keeps happening to him. So, I mean, both at the

same time, they both kind of have that going

for them. They happen to be, you know, shit just

happens to them, whether it be to their family

or otherwise. But I find that a little bit of

Riggs, like, I like his comedy. But at the same

time, when I'm wanting to watch an action film,

I'm wanting more of action and less of joking,

so I have to go with John McClane. Oh my, I don't

know what to do here. Well, I'll let you think

about that for a second, because for me it's

pretty clear cut. I will state for the record,

I love both actors, both characters. But because

we're all about choosing the better of the two

in these categories, I have to go with Riggs.

He's more a dynamic character. He is more rounded,

whereas McLean is just straightforward cop in

a bad situation. But my vote goes to Riggs. But,

you know, after having heard a little bit more

of that, too, and on the other hand, I started

thinking about it. Riggs evolves through the

series. McClain doesn't. Yeah. He's playing,

you know, it's like, throw me in a situation,

give me a paycheck. It's kind of like, I guess

that's almost what some people find is the charm

of Die Hard and John McClain is that you continuously

get the same thing over and over and over again.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I think

that's what some people, like it appeals to them

because it's like, it doesn't matter what year

it is, what situation it is. Here comes John

McClain and we know exactly what to expect and

what we're going to get. And you're right, he

doesn't evolve. It's like the same thing over

and over and over again. I'm not saying that's

bad necessarily, but I agree that Riggs is the

character that definitely evolves over the course,

especially in those first couple films. Really,

his character develops and evolves, and you kind

of can see the multiple parts of his character.

Go ahead. So, I mean, yeah, to interject, I guess

I'm flip -flopping, but yeah, I guess I have

to go with you guys with Riggs just because of

that simple fact alone that while I do enjoy

John McClane's character quite a bit, there is

no true evolution of his character other than

the fact they add his kids later on. Which, you

know, I mean, I like the modern situations, but

at the same time, you know, it's... And I've

heard from a lot of people, especially with this

fifth film, and I can't comment too much on it

because I've kind of browsed through snippets

here or there until I get time to sit and watch

it. But John McClane, I heard that you could

basically replace Bruce Willis in that film,

and it could be just a typical action guy because

he's just kind of throwing out his lines and

not really... It's like the least... evolved

version of McClane that you can get out of any

of the films. Yeah. So, I guess I have to go

with Riggs for this. Yeah, I mean, if you're

asking me, like, okay, I have a loved one that's

trapped somewhere, you know, which action star

am I going to trust to... rescue my friend or

something, yeah, I might go with John McClane

because he seems like that's the badass. He's

the one that goes in and gets things done. But

if you're asking me which character I prefer

and which one I want to watch more or which one

I'm more drawn to in the movies, it's Riggs.

just because I like, I like his character. I

like the, that he's more real because he has,

he's an action star in a sense, but he's also

more relatable because you can see his pain.

You can see his, uh, mental anguish as he's dealing

with loss or as he's dealing with this or that.

Um, whereas John McClane, it's almost, he's almost

such a bad -ass action star that it's not relatable

to because he's, it's almost, you know, like

a superhero type situation where you're like,

you know, I can't relate to that guy at all.

He's just a baddest that gets things done. Whereas

Riggs is like, Oh, I can see, you know, I can,

I can, you know, have some emotion that I can

feel and I can, you know, have some empathy or

whatever and sympathy for him. So I, my votes

for Riggs as well. I, you know, you know, just

really quickly as a closing thought on, on the

main stars here, the, the reason why, another

reason why I thought of going with Riggs is as

we've already stated about his character, But

that scene at the end of the first film, or one

of the scenes in the first Lethal Weapon where

Roger asks him about being suicidal and he goes

back and yells at him and he's like, you really

want to know what I do? You really want to know

why I wake up and I don't put the gun in my mouth?

The job. That's what keeps me from... killing

myself right you know and that is more you know

like i as we've already stated john mcclain is

even from the first film he is made to be look

look like a superhero like no cop is gonna walk

around a building barefoot with glass in it you

know you know what i mean it's like you know

what i mean so yeah rigs Alright, well we have

one more category to get to before we get to

the actual movie breakdown that we'll be doing

over the course of like four different categories.

And I wanted to get a quick snapshot because

I think it's only fitting that we're talking

about film franchises and they did basically

have the same director over the course of the

franchise so far. The Die Hard ones did not.

Not for the last one or two, but he did for the

first three. Oh, no. Tiernan only did the first

one and the third one. Oh, the first one and

the third one. The best ones of the series. Yeah,

he's the one known for the franchise. Right,

right, right. He's the one known. I'm not saying

that, but I actually looked it up when we were

talking about the character still because I was

like, wait a minute. He didn't direct all four.

But I wanted to get kind of a snapshot. This

is not. who did the better directing on Die Hard

or Lethal Weapon. This is simply who is the better,

which franchise had the better director. And

that's John McTiernan on the Die Hard side and

Richard Donner on the Lethal Weapon side. Just

real quick, for those people that aren't familiar

with these guys' work, I just wanted to break

it down real quick before we talk about it. John

McTiernan did Die Hard, Die Hard 3. He did Predator,

The Hunt for Red October, The Thomas Crown Affair,

Last Action Hero, The 13th Warrior, Basic. Those

are probably his most notable. ones. What? I

said wow. And then on the other side of things,

if we were talking about Richard Donner, obviously

Superman, Superman 2. All four Lethal Weapons.

All four Lethal Weapons. Maverick, another Mel

Gibson movie. Scrooged. The Goonies. Conspiracy

Theory, another Mel Gibson movie. 16 Blocks.

The Toy Timeline. Assassins. Radio Fire. Those

are kind of... what those individuals have done.

Um, Mike, what are your thoughts on McTiernan

versus Donner? I gotta go with it. If it's just

like, if I'm just looking at the lethal weapon

series versus the diehard series, I probably

would go with Donner, but I need to clarify that

the Superman two Donner cut wasn't something

that was mainstay when Superman two came out,

there was the Richard Lester cut. That was in

theaters. That was the theatrical version. And

then later is when the Donner cut got released

because somehow they wanted a show of... Because

originally he directed the first two, as you

said, but Superman II, they went with Lester's

story as far as what everyone really saw in theaters.

As far as directing the two franchises, I've

got to go with Donner on Lethal Weapon. Yes,

John McTiernan did an amazing job in Die Hard

1 and 3, but Donner told a story over four films

of these two characters and what goes on in both

of their lives. He told his writers, himself,

whoever went into the process of creating Lethal

Weapon 1 to 4. it's a fluid flowing story. Whereas

the Die Hard direction, you had Rennie Harlan

directing the second film and you had Len Lee,

somebody directing the fourth film. And I don't

even know who was directing the fifth one. But

the Die Hard films to me are, it's just another

day in the life of John McClane. What kind of

strange situation? Like if Die Hard was just,

Die Hard 1, 3, and 4. That told a fluid story.

I would probably go with McTiernan. Because Die

Hard 1 and 3, it's the Gruber brothers. The first

one is Hans Gruber, the third one is... And that's

the only two where Bruce Willis' character actually

pretty much had an evolution because he was able

to actually portray that. Whereas the second

one, there's not really all that much going on

there. I mean, it's... I don't find it as interesting

as watching the first or the third film. And

I find the fourth film only interesting only

for the fact that it's many years later, so it's

showing that he's just a street cop. Right, exactly.

If I'm separating these two and not necessarily

looking at their work, because I think they both

did an excellent job with Lethal Weapon and Die

Hard, obviously. Well, they did. You know, they

made that franchise, both franchises, what they

are. But if I'm separating them and just trying

to say, like, who's the better director, then

I got to go with Richard Donner. You know, talk

about stuff like the Goonies. I love Conspiracy

Theory and Maverick. And, you know, to be able

to work on both Superman and Lethal Weapon, I

don't know. My choice is Richard Donner. Yeah,

my choice would be Donner too. Simply, you know,

you keep mentioning Maverick. You mentioned it

over on the DCR comedies episode. What is so

great about Maverick is that Danny Glover is

the robber and he pulls down the mask. They look

at you. Nah. Yeah, that was an awesome part of

that movie. Yeah, I love that. But yes, Richard

Donner. would be my choice. Steve, what's your

choice? Well, I think this is going to be one

of the few unanimous ones here, as far as I can

tell so far. While I do like Nick Tiernan's job

done with the Die Hard and Die Hard with a Vengeance,

and I like Last Action Hero, he... I don't know.

He doesn't have as many hit films as Richard

Donner. I mean, you look at Richard Donner, like

you guys said, he did The Superman 1 and 2. He

did all four Lethal Weapon, which to me, if a

director is able to stick with a series that

long and kind of evolve it, even if it's not

a good thing from Michael Bay perspective. But

I'm just saying, like, in general, if they're

able to kind of stick with a series and evolve

it and kind of keep that vision going, then,

you know, you got to go with that guy. I mean,

and he's done a bunch of hit movies, too. I mean,

you got the Goonies in there and, you know, like

you said, Maverick and Scrooged. And so, I mean,

he's got a lot of great stuff under his belt.

Oh, yeah. Definitely agree with that. Alright,

so we got a unanimous choice here in round two

of our heavyweight bout. And now we're going

to go into the actual films. Now, before anybody

goes off on their opinions, I wanted to do a

couple things here. First of all, a lot of people

probably get... the individual films confused

you know which one's one or which one's three

or which one's two as they're trying to think

back you know if they're listening to us so i

want to give a brief synopsis real quick of the

original diehard and the original lethal weapon

we'll do the same as we go through here just

so people remember which movie we're talking

about The original Die Hard, 1988, that's the

one that begins on Christmas Eve when McClane's

traveling to Los Angeles to spend Christmas with

his wife, who is living in Los Angeles with their

two children. They attend a party at the fictional

Nakatomi Plaza. During the party, East German

terrorists break into the building and take the

partygoers hostage. McClane escapes detection

and manages to hide throughout the building,

gradually killing off the terrorist gang and

learning that their real aim is to steal millions

from the building's vault. And when McClane meets

the terrorist leader... Groover, a climactic

battle ensues, and eventually McClane throws

Groover out the window. So that was the first

Die Hard. As far as the first lethal weapon goes,

struggling with age and retirement, homicide

detective Murtaugh is partnered with young and

suicidal narcotics officer Riggs. Together they

work the case of the alleged suicide of Amanda

Hunsacker, daughter of a wealthy businessman

who served with Murtaugh in Vietnam, the classic

scene of her naked body jumping out the apartment.

off the ledge of the, whatever it was, hotel

room. Murtaugh and Riggs soon discovered that

Hunsaker was involved in a heroin smuggling scheme

led by a retired general and his lead enforcer,

Mr. Joshua. So those are the first two films.

I didn't mention, but Lethal Weapon was a year

earlier, 1987, compared to Die Hard in 1988.

Give you a quick view of how other people view

the films. The original Die Hard has a 94%. on

Rotten Tomatoes and Lethal Weapon has a 90%.

So they're both pretty well received on Rotten

Tomatoes. Mike, why don't you start off here?

What are your opinions if we're just comparing

Die Hard 1 versus Lethal Weapon 1? Lethal Weapon

1... Well, all the cop stuff with Riggs and Murtaugh

is great. The overall plot... is so convoluted.

There are so many red herrings. Like, oh, it's

the prostitute Dixie. Oh, there's the guy in

the pool. You're lucky I didn't shoot you. No,

that's not what he says. He says, well, I haven't

shot you yet. Well, I like watching Lethal Weapon

1. It is not my favorite film of the franchise.

I think it's a great introductory film bringing

us into the lives of these characters. On the

flip side of the coin, Die Hard, from beginning

to end, is just one action -packed, slightly

story -filled film, where you've got this guy,

who's a cop, thrown into a bad situation, and

he tries everything in his right mind to get

the police here, get the fire department here,

or whatever. Eventually, he runs into... Officer

Al Powell through radio communication and all

that. Honestly, I enjoy Die Hard more than I

do Lethal Weapon 1. I've got to read the movie

poster just because they cracked me up. Die Hard

1. Twelve terrorists. One cop. The odds are against

John McClane. That's just the way he likes it.

But the Lethal Weapon 1 is even better. Two cops.

Glover carries a weapon. Gibson is one. He's

the only LA cop registered as a lethal weapon.

Yeah. He's the star. Yeah. Well, right. But the,

the campaigns for the movies are all great. And

yes, I do agree. I just, like I said earlier,

I see them, especially as the films progress

in a lethal weapon franchise. It is, they are

the two stars. You know, I can, I can go ahead

and concede that in the first film, Mel is the

star, but as they go on... As I was saying about

Die Hard, it's a really fun film to watch. It

has so many facets. It doesn't really have anything

in it that is too convoluted or red herring -wise,

or it doesn't throw you for a loop. It's a straight

story. These terrorists are breaking into this

building. You think they want one thing. They

really want another thing. You know... and it's

John trying to, you know, he's picking them off

one by one. I think that's the beauty of Die

Hard 1, and that's kind of something that kind

of really goes in its favor, is that this entire

movie, this entire rollercoaster action thrill

ride that we're going through in this movie is

all restrained within that building. Everything

happens in that building and everything revolves

around the different floors and the different

levels and the different rooms, etc. And I kind

of really appreciate the fact that all of this

is happening in the same location. And it almost

makes it like more of an adventure, more of something

that you can... really get into because it's

like he's trapped in this building how is he

going to get out or how is he going to get help

type thing whereas lethal weapon uh i love lethal

weapon one i absolutely love lethal weapon one

and i it but it's all over the place like you

said you're going this way and that way and the

other way and you've got all these different

things tied together which somewhat goes against

it what i appreciate out of lethal weapon one

though is just learning about rigs as a character

and really getting to see mel gibson play that

crazy part, and him and Glover forming that relationship

and getting to see that happen from the beginning.

So I think both films are freaking excellent.

I love the first film in both of these franchises.

So I'm a little bit torn. I'm leaning a little

bit towards Die Hard just because it had a huge

impact on the action genre and made this franchise,

and it's probably the highlight of the franchise

for me. Steve, what do you think about the first

one of each one? Well, it's kind of a hard toss

-up, like you said. And it's hard to top a first

movie of a series, of any series for that matter.

And it's still hard to top both of these because

they're introductions. It shows what they're

about. It shows what their quirks are and all

that. While I like the buddy cop system thing,

the thing that kind of goes in Die Hard's favor

is you didn't really have a one cop against all

odds kind of movie at that time. I mean, in the

80s, it was filled with buddy cop. I mean, you

could even argue that Beverly Hills Cop, to an

extent, was a buddy cop because, you know, he

had the cops from L .A. and everything. The 80s

was just filled with it, and then part of the

90s too. But Die Hard had that nice element of

the one cop against terrorists, kind of stuck

in the heat of the moment. What is he going to

do? Whereas Lethal Weapon is more of a trying

to solve this crime and trying to solve these

problems that are going on that don't seem interconnected.

Don't get me wrong, both of them are great. It's

a hard coin to flip and pick one. But for this

one, I have to say that Die Hard, the first one,

would top Lethal Weapon in the sense that it's

just non -stop action fun. I love the fact that

it's just this one cop. I like the fact that

there's one cop. I like the fact that he's isolated

in that building. And it's just something that

I hadn't seen up to that point. It was something

that was unique. Whereas you said, if you really

take away and rip away the characters and some

of that stuff from Lethal Weapon, in the end,

it is just your detective story. You know, I

mean, it really is. I mean, it's a Law & Order

episode. It's a Criminal Minds episode. It's

a whatever. But what makes it seem that much

better is the relationship between Gibson and

Glover, Riggs and Murtaugh, and that kind of

hides in it, masks the fact that in the end it's

just a detective story. Yeah. So, we all vote

Die Hard again? Well, for the first time, we're

all going to vote Die Hard. Right, but I mean,

as far as all of our choices, it's unanimous

for Die Hard to win this round. Correct. So that

would take us to the second film. in each of

the franchises. So for Die Hard, that's coming

in 1990. Second film takes place a year after

the events of the first film, and it's once again

on Christmas Eve. This time, the setting is in

Washington, D .C. McClane is at Washington Dulles

International Airport awaiting the arrival of

his wife. Meanwhile, a group of mercenaries led

by former U .S. Army Special Forces Colonel,

that's a lot to say, Stewart, take over the airport's

communication systems, stranding several planes

in the air, including the one McClane's wife

is on. Colonel Stewart's plan is to free a captured

Latin American dictator, Franco Nero, who is

en route to the airport. McClane discovers the

plan, including a conspiracy between Stewart

and an army counter -terrorist unit sent to stop

him. He foils their plans and provides a visual

landing signal for the circling aircraft by exploding

the plane the villains were using for their getaway.

That is a mouthful. Lethal Weapon, the second

one. During a car chase, Riggs and Murtaugh stumble

upon a trunk full of smuggled South African...

Krugerrands. This sparks a series of attempts

at their lives, forcing them to take a less dangerous

case, protecting Leo Goetz, a loudmouth whistleblower.

However, they realize that Goetz was involved

in the same South African illegal activities.

As a result, they become entangled in a drug

smuggling operation involving South African diplomats

in Los Angeles. Briggs kills the murderer of

his wife, who is among the criminals. So those

were the second movies, Lethal Weapon 2. Rotten

Tomato Style is 82%, whereas Die Hard's second

one was a 67%. I can't believe it's that high,

honestly. Yeah, I have to agree. Go ahead, Mike.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Die Hard 2 when it

comes on TV. I love it. Don't get me wrong. I

love the film. But comparing these two, Lethal

Weapon 2 is so much better. Die Hard 2, again,

you've got John McClane thrown into a situation,

but this one, while it has the same humor and

feel of McClane in Die Hard 1, it's just another

day in the life of John McClane, another mission,

another whatever, or him getting thrown into

another situation that becomes a mission. I did

like the fact that his wife was on the plane

and that you had to try to figure out how were

they going to communicate or how, you know, that

type of thing. And I do think that there are

some pretty cool classic iconic things as far

as the plane goes and the explosion, et cetera.

But yeah, the plot for Die Hard 2 to me is a

little all over the place. It is. It's very all

over the place because... Go ahead. Well, it's

very all over the place because you have so many

different things going on. You've got the air

traffic controller stuff here. You've got the

actual plane. You know, he puts his asshole in

the middle of everything. You've got this. You've

got that. You've got all this stuff going on.

You've got the two. You've got the little general

who we see his ass in one shot. You know, you.

You've got all this stuff. And then you have

the switcheroo with the bullets. And then you

have the switcheroo with, oh, the guys that are

supposed to be helping the airport security are

actually the team that's with the... It's too

many red herrings. It's not one straightforward

story. I like the fact that John McClane still

gets his line of, oh... What are the chances

this happens to the same guy twice? I like all

of that, don't get me wrong. And I like, obviously,

in the edited version, that's where we get yippee

-ki -yay, Mr. Falcon, because obviously they

have to edit it for television. I like all that,

but the story just does... The action holds up,

the story does not. The story is so convoluted,

it's not... no. To me, the magic of Lethal Weapon

2 is the fact that... From the get -go, you know

who the bad people are. You know what they want

to have happen, but then you're dealing with

the fact that so many times Riggs has to deal

with the fact that he can't touch these guys.

You know what I mean? He can't do what he knows

has to be done. He can't just... do things the

easy way like he wants you know he has to deal

with all this diplomatic community etc etc and

find a way around it so it's like you it's an

interesting dilemma for this basically this action

star to have where it's one situation where you

can't just be a typical action star and go guns

barreling you know through the doors and everything

like you have to be sly about how you're going

to do this i mean yeah there's some places where

he basically does go guns blazing at times, but,

but, you know, just dealing with that whole diplomatic

community is, it's kind of like the magic touch

of lethal weapon too. And it's like an interesting

side to see how are they going to deal with this?

Yeah. The thing with lethal weapon too, is as

I said, because you've got the same director,

I don't know if it was the same writer, but you've

got the same guys. This, it continues the story

from the first film. You know, it brings more

depth to both Riggs and Murtaugh. You know, you've

got the line of, oh, you've got the introduction

of Joe Pesci, and you've got the introduction

of Leo Goetz. Whatever you need, Leo Goetz. You

know, you've got that. You've got that awesome

pool scene where they jump off the building.

You know, you've got that. You've got more insight

into Riggs' past because the South Africans,

or at least one of them, was one of the ones

that helped stage his wife's car accident or

they killed his wife. What I love and what I

used to, I actually used to try to do this myself.

I don't recommend anyone do this. It's kind of

like, you know, you watch WWE or WWF or whatever

they're calling themselves these days. And you're

like, kids, don't try this at home. And there's

a bunch of emo 16, 17 -year -olds at home doing

backyard wrestling. As a kid, I always wanted

to and tried to do what Riggs did, popping the

shoulder out and popping it back. Well, I didn't

seriously try it. You know what I mean? But it's

like just the emotion of just doing that. And

it's like, oh, my God, this guy has been through

hell. And it's, you know, and of course, the

fish, the office scene, eeny, meeny, miny, hey,

Mo! You know, it's just, it's all, the story

here is much, it's a much better told story than

what we have in Lethal Weapon 1. It's far superior

and less red herring -y, if that's even a word,

than what Die Hard 2 is. Um, cause you know,

as you said, you know who the bad guys are, you

know, what's going on, you know what they're

doing. You just can't get to them. You have to

find a way around it. Um, you know, so that's,

that's why I, I enjoy lethal weapon two more

than die hard to die harder. Steve, what are

your thoughts on the second installment of you?

Um, actually you guys pretty much summed that

one up. And I cannot argue with it whatsoever.

The only thing I can say is Die Hard 2 does need

to die harder. Lethal Weapon needs... I mean,

it doesn't need anything. It progressed the natural

evolution by adding Joe Pesci. And it helped

bring something fresh to it without taking away

from what was already there. So in that essence,

I have to agree that it was a much better film.

And you get to, like you guys mentioned, there's

a lot of personal turmoil with Riggs. Right.

So, I mean, overall, that's just hands down a

better film. I've never seen us agree on so many

things. It's amazing. Hell must have froze over

last night. Something. All right, so that takes

us to category or round number five, which is

the third chapter, Die Hard with a Vengeance

from 1995 or Lethal Weapon 3 from 1992. Starting

with Die Hard as we normally have done here.

In the third film, McClane is back in New York

City and now is separated from his wife, suspended

from the police force, and a borderline alcoholic.

A terrorist who goes only by the name Simon threatens

to blow up various locations in the city unless

McClane will play his twisted version of Simon

Says. McClane must solve a number of riddles

and challenges in order to keep the bombs from

going off. He receives the reluctant help of

Zeus Carver, played by Samuel L. Jackson, a shopkeeper

from Harlem who had saved McClane after the first

challenge Simon had put him through. The FBI

finally revealed that Simon is in fact Simon

Peter Gruber, the brother of Hans Gruber, who

is attempting to kill McClane in revenge for

his brother's death in the first film. In a subsequent

revelation, McClane discovers that revenge is

only a timely and clever cover story to conceal

the true purpose behind his terrorist activities,

the forced depletion of New York's Federal Reserve.

With the help of Carver, McClane tracks Simon

to the Canadian border. There, in a decisive

final confrontation with the latter in a helicopter,

McClane puts an end to Simon's plan with a handgun

and a power line. As far as Lethal Weapon 3 goes,

as Murtaugh, who is three days away from retiring

in Riggs, investigates a robbery. Uh, committed

using a duplicate armored car. They find themselves

in the middle of an internal affairs investigation

led by Sergeant Lorna Cole, Renee Russo. The

subject of the investigation is a rogue AWOL

cop, Stuart Wilson, who's stealing impounded

weapons and selling them on the black market.

In the middle of the investigation, Murtaugh

shoots and kills a teenager who turns out to

be a friend of his own son that attacked him

in rigs. This prompts Murtaugh to capture the

man responsible for the distribution of illegal

firearms and to rethink his retirement. Uh, diehard.

3 received a 52 % on Rotten Tomatoes and Lethal

Weapon 3 received a 59%. So a 52 % on one hand

and a 59 % on the other one. So, I don't know.

For me, I really like parts of basically what

they came up with for Die Hard 3. Die Hard with

a Vengeance. Number one, I like the pairing of

McClane with Zeus. Especially that first scene

and how they do that. I like the fact that instead

of kind of... It's not McClane going somewhere

or something like that. It was kind of like they

just... This guy's basically coming after him.

So we kind of have a flip there. I like all the

different little riddles and challenges that

they have to deal with. And I like the fact that

they tied in this character as the brother of

the character from the first film. That adds

some continuity. And then you can completely

buy that this guy wants revenge. And then I like

that it was a cover story and that he's actually

going after money. I mean, it complicates it

a little bit, but I like that. Jeremy Irons is

cool. So, I mean, there's a lot of parts about

Die Hard 3 that I like. But then there's a lot

of parts about Lethal Weapon 3 that I like. I'm

not saying either one of them is the strongest

one of the franchises by any means, but I like

both of them. Mike, what do you think? Well,

I almost wish at this point that Hans did not

die, because I want Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons,

I want them together. As the groomers. I swear

to God. Can you imagine how awesome that would

be? That would be so freaking cool. Okay, I'm

going to start with Lethal Weapon 3 because I

like the movie. I like bits and pieces of it.

There are a couple of times where instead of

shooting out Leo's tires, I wanted to shoot Leo

because he's just so frigging annoying. But Lethal

Weapon 3, when did this come out? Was this 92?

Wow. Oh, my God. No, I thought it was closer

to, I thought they actually came out in the same

year. Lethal Weapon 3 has pretty much, I guess

Michael Bay decided to copy the plot because

this is pretty much the plot of, sort of. of

bad boys in 95 because bad boys has a former

cop getting criminals into and stealing heroin.

Uh, whereas this has a former cop getting, you

know, but anyway, the bad boys is for another

day. But anyway, it's one of those films that

is really enjoyable for the most part. I love

how rigs and like, I love how at this point rigs

in his character development is moving past.

Vicky is moving past his, his, his dead wife.

Yeah. And They've introduced Lorna. And I love

how instead of just to put it in, you know, Wayne

Campbell's terminology, gratuitous sex scene,

instead of just having a gratuitous sex scene,

they basically, the way they bond and the way

that, you know, they bond over bullet wounds

and over wounds that they've gotten. Like, I

like that. I think that was an interesting way

to show two cops, even though she's internal

affairs, you know, to find a way to bond. As

far as Murtaugh in this one, I like his character

development of, oh my god, this kid could have

been my kid. Because Nick is kind of hanging

out with the wrong crowd. So I like that about

it. Die Hard, I like pretty much everything about

the film. I love the elevator scene where he

kills all the guys. In the elevator, I thought

that was cool. I love the whole thing of introducing

these two pretty much. I don't know how big,

I don't remember how big Samuel L. Jackson was

then. I would have to look at his filmography

to see if he was huge before this. Oh yeah, he

was pretty big by this time. Right, I'm not saying

he wasn't, but I love the addition of Jeremy

Irons and Samuel L. Jackson and then having supporting

characters. I just like the plot better for Die

Hard on this one. I do too, yeah. To me, the

best part about Lethal Weapon 3 is the whole

retirement angle and Murtaugh wanting to retire

and the whole thing about how is this partnership

going to handle that? They've been together.

They've finally learned to really work together.

Now one of them is going to retire type thing.

So I like that angle, but that's not the main

plot. That's just kind of the... icing on the

cake, so to speak. But as far as a plot goes,

I definitely like the Die Hard plot better for

the third installment. Steve, what do you think?

This one, I'm going to have to agree with you

guys. I'm going to have to go with Die Hard as

well. I love the addition of Sam Jackson in it.

I love the fact that the villain came after Bruce

Willis' character of John McClane instead of

John McClane kind of stumbling into it. It brought

it more on a personal level because McClane killed

Hans Gruber and then you have Simon that's playing

games with him and he's like, I don't know who

the hell you are, guy. And he finally reveals

it and then you're like, oh shit, it's a revenge

plot. But I mean... I just like that overall.

And Lethal Weapon 3, not that I have anything

bad to say against it, but I just, like you guys,

I found the plot to be much more interesting.

And granted, it wasn't confined to a building

or an airstrip or any of that kind of stuff.

I like the fact that it all took place within

the city for the most part. It made the battleground

bigger, but it didn't take away from the plot.

And to me, it was good, too, to see McClane's

character have to deal with more than just a

confined space. He has to get to this point to

this point within a certain amount of time, and

he has to use different modes of transportation

and stuff like that. So you got to see him on

different grounds here, which was kind of refreshing

to me. And then I like the fact that they had

to figure out, wait a second, what are they actually

doing? They're not blowing up all these places,

but they're going after the money. So yeah, Mike,

was your official vote for Die Hard on this one?

Die Hard with a Vengeance. Another reason why

I like that one over Lethal Weapon is mainly

for one of the subplots or one of the running

gags throughout the film. It's not necessarily

a gag, but they play down the whole racial thing,

where Zeus is like, oh, he's basically calling

McClane a racist, and McClane isn't even saying

that. And he's like, no, you're just a guy, just

like, you know, it has nothing, you know. But

at that time in 95, the whole race thing was

really, like, that was really, really big. So

I like how they, in With a Vengeance, they kind

of downplayed it to the point of, I don't care

if you're frigging purple, you know. You know

what I mean? I enjoyed that. But, yeah, my vote

is for With a Vengeance. between the two it's

much better all right so then we will move on

to the next Part of our fight here is category

number six, and that is the fourth chapter, obviously.

And for Die Hard, that comes in 2007 with Live

Free or Die Hard. The fourth film takes place

on Independence Day, over a decade after the

events of Die Hard with Vengeance, with McClane

now divorced from his wife and estranged from

his daughter. A group of cyber terrorists begin

hacking into the computers of the FBI, who send

McClane to bring in computer hacker Matt Farrell

to question him about the cyber attack. In the

process, a group of assassins hired by terrorists...

Terrorist mastermind Thomas Gabriel attempts

to kill McClane and Farrell. Farrell tells McClane

that the terrorists are actually in the middle

of performing a crippling cyber warfare attack

on the infrastructure of the country, disrupting

all power, public utilities, traffic, and other

computer controlled systems. And the terrorists

later take Lucy and Farrell hostage. In the end,

McClane saves them and foils the terrorist scheme.

And that received a 81%. on Rotten Tomatoes,

81%. Lethal Weapon 4, while both Lorna and Murtaugh's

daughter, Rianne, are pregnant, Riggs and Murtaugh

must pair with rookie detective Lee Butters to

investigate a Chinese immigrant smuggling ring.

Hua Sing Ku is a ruthless enforcer who personally

attempts to murder Murtaugh's family by burning

them alive in their own home. As the story progresses,

Murtaugh discovers that Lee is the father of

his daughter's unborn child. Marta and Riggs

slayed dozens of Chinese gangsters and ultimately

managed to catch up with the boss of the smuggling

ring. And Lethal Weapon 4 received a 54%. So

54 compared to 81 as far as the Rotten Tomatoes

go. I will start with this one real quick. Go

ahead. I remember specifically both of these

films coming out. Because I was already a diehard

and a Lethal Weapon fan. I had seen the other

ones. I was a huge fan of both franchises. I

had no idea that eventually I was going to get

to see another chapter of either one of these.

Remember, the fourth Die Hard film is 12 years

after the third one. And Lethal Weapon is six

years. So to me, these were franchises that had

already did their whole thing. In my elementary

to middle school years, they played themselves

out. And I was a fan of them. I had watched them

in reruns, etc. I never expected that they would

then get rebooted in my high school and then

the other one past my college years. But I do

remember when Lethal Weapon 4 came out and I

was really excited about it. And it did not disappoint

me. I know a lot of people might rip on it, but

I enjoyed Lethal Weapon 4 and I thought it was

a good job of rebooting the franchise at least

six years later. Die Hard, To me, this is a story

of two different movies. I know we're not talking

about the fifth movie, but the fourth movie was

this long period of stretching between the third

and the fourth, and it came out, and I was a

little bit skeptical, and then I went in, and

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I also thought it was

cool because it was one of the first... I thought

it was cool that they made it current by dealing

with cyber -terrorism. Yeah, and dealing with

that type of issue, and the idea that someone

could... you know disrupt all power all public

utilities all traffic all everything because

everything is so interconnected i thought that

was genius and i just i was very impressed and

it did way better than i expected it to in my

mind compared to then when die hard 5 comes out

and it just really kind of laid an egg um i mean

it does have its decent parts but it It was very

disappointing. So it's like the right way to

do things all these years later or the wrong

way to do things all these years later. So I

like the fourth installment of each one because

neither one of them should have been good and

they both, to me, were. Well, the thing about...

I can't. It's Die Hard 4 .0, damn it. That's

what it is. The thing about the fourth Die Hard

film, as you said, it's all these years later.

But McClane is basically a beat cop at this point.

Like, you would think that throughout the four

films that he would have... I know he wouldn't

want to do this, but you would think that they

would promote him or something. Like, they would

give him, like, sergeant or lieutenant or something

that wasn't behind a desk but still had, you

know what I mean, still had the promotion without

putting him behind a desk. I really miss the

PC versus Apple commercials. One of the first

things I thought of with this movie, because

Justin Long was the Apple guy in that thing.

And Kevin Smith. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Kevin Smith,

that's one of the main reasons I think why this

fourth film even got made. He originally, I thought

I could be wrong. I'm not looking at the internet.

I'm not looking at information, but I could have

sworn that they wanted him to write a pass on

this or somehow be involved with this. And I

think on all the special features, he's talking

with Bruce Willis or something. I remember something

with the two of them getting together and sitting

down and talking. You know, you got Kevin Smith

in this as a guest, as the warlock or warlord

or whatever his name is. Warlock. Yeah. But Die

Hard 4, I liked it. I thought it was great. The

cyberterrorism was something new, something different,

something... It's something relatable to today's

age. Right, right, because it did come out in

2007. The thing is, again, you boil it down.

Between Die Hard 1, 3, and 4, they are all...

oh, I need to get the financial information of

everybody. Yes, I get the thing of Die Hard 4

being the whole thing of, oh, we're going to

basically darken the entire country. We're going

to deprive everybody. But in the end, it's just

a robbery. I don't know. I do like the angle

of dealing with... new group for Lethal Weapon

4 and dealing with the Chinese... Am I saying

that right? The Chinese terrorists. There were

some very funny scenes with some of those guys,

and it was a new style of something that Riggs

was going to have to go against, dealing with

this martial artist. So I thought that was kind

of an interesting thing, and I thought it worked

for Lethal Weapon 4. I just wanted to add that

in there. It did. Lethal... Okay. Something I

didn't bring up... a second ago when we were

talking about Lethal 3 and Die Hard 3, something

I wanted to bring up here. What I love about

Lethal 3 and 4, the opening scenes. This is how

you do a movie that you want it to look like

it's starting out being, oh, just another day

in the life of whomever. In the third movie,

they had the car bombing scene where the car

blew up and the building blew up. In the fourth

movie, you've got Van Halen's fire in the hole

blaring as Mr. Flamethrower is terrorizing everybody.

And Riggs is like, yeah, strip down to your skivvies.

And those little hearts can go out and dance

and cluck like a chicken. Keep dancing. I need

him to turn. I need to hit that napalm tank.

You know, I love those because you can have scenes

like those in a movie. kind of showing, oh my

God, this is another day in the life of Riggs

and Murtaugh. And then go into the actual story

of what the movie is that has nothing to, it

kind of, obviously it does have a running gag

because Riggs took, you know, there was a picture

in the paper and obviously he's like, yeah, I

don't know who keeps doing this. Whoever keeps

doing this, I'm going to kick your ass later.

And he puts the picture back up. You know, because

he always likes screwing with Murtaugh. And again,

it's the, It's the culmination of that franchise.

At this point in the fourth film, they are two

best friends. Murtaugh's family is Riggs' family

with Lorna and everybody else. And you've got

the introduction of Chris Rock, the worst voice

actor on the planet, that doesn't deserve a million

dollars per job. You've got him coming in as

the father of Rianne's baby. I'm honestly surprised

they did that. I'm surprised that somehow they

didn't work around the fact from the first film

that Rianne had a huge crush on him. I'm really

surprised that that never happened. I like how

the whole thing of with Lorna being pregnant

and... She reveals the secret to Riggs, and she's

like, you can't tell Roger. He'll go crazy. And

then, of course, by the time the dentist office

scene is... I love Uncle Benny. I love Uncle

Benny. You know, you've got the dentist scene,

and they're all inhaling the laughing gas. And,

of course... Why didn't you tell me? I love both

of these films, Die Hard 4 and Lethal Weapon

4. I do. I don't know. Go ahead. To me, what

it boils down to for these two is as much as

I was impressed with Live Free or Die Hard, and

as much as I expected it to be a flop and it

wasn't, and I was so pleasantly surprised and

I enjoyed it, To me, it wasn't a flop because

it was a decent movie, but it was almost like

it was a decent standalone movie. It is, yeah.

I don't see... I don't get... With Lethal Weapon,

they all feel like they're all within that same

universe. They're all connected. They do a better

job of connecting all four of those movies, whereas

Live Free or Die Hard could almost be like a

standalone movie with just another person, like

we kind of said about Die Hard 5. You still get

all the cool John McClane moments and it makes

it die hard, but to me it's not as connected

with the franchise. As I feel like Lethal Weapon

4 is. Yeah. As I stated before, Lethal Weapon

1 through 4 is an entire saga story. They are

character -driven movies with the main stars

and with the supporting cast and families and

everything else. And the whole point of this

movie at the end is, are you all friends? No,

we're family. Because at that point... From Lethal

Weapon 1 to 4, by Lethal Weapon 4, Riggs is going

to get married again. They're having a kid. He's

not that, I just get up for the job and I don't

put the gun in my mouth. He's not that character

anymore. He's grown up. They even say it in the

movie. We're not too old for this shit. Of course,

they start saying in the beginning, oh, we're

too old for this shit. But then they go, we're

not too old for this shit. So his character has

come pretty much full circle. Well, and to me,

I think it's easier for the Lethal Weapon to

feel like a Lethal Weapon movie because it's

more than just one person. It's all of them.

It's been building. You have Riggs and Murtaugh.

Leo Getz. And then you had, you know, Rene Russo's

character and Chris Rock's character. You know,

they've all come in. And you know about Riggs

and Murtaugh's family, especially Murtaugh, obviously.

You know, his family is involved and they appear

in all the movies. So, I mean, it's very easy

for it to feel like a Lethal Weapon film because

you have all of these people. Whereas Die Hard

is a one -man show. That is both the beauty of

it And in, I guess some ways the curse of it,

because it becomes very hard for you to make

it feel like a diehard film and not just another

film with John McClane. Right. And like I said

earlier, I do, what I like about the last two

diehard films is that over the years, since the

first three, since the trilogy, well, I guess

you could call it a trilogy. The second one,

not really, but the first three. you've got the

whole thing of, oh, his wife and him are separated,

oh, his ex -wife, and you've got the kids in

the first movie. By the fourth movie, you've

got his daughters all grown up, and now in the

fifth movie, you've got his son coming back.

So I like that about those two films, but as

you said, it's pretty much one man versus an

entire family. What I love about Lethal 4 is

how... leo has pretty much he hasn't calmed down

his his his antics but they're more subtle like

the scene that makes me laugh so much in lethal

4 is the phone scene they're fucking me with

the cell phones no you're like that whole that

whole i love that that scene is so Amazing. You

know, say what you want about Chris Rock now,

but Chris Rock then, Leo's like, yo Riggs, who's

the perp? Oh, just because I'm a black man sitting

in the back of a police car, you think I'm a

perp? Here's the gun. Here's the badge. I just,

I find that Lethal Weapon 4 is the better film

out of the two for the family aspect, for the

character development, for the overall story.

Story of family. As far as the plot goes, it's

pretty much, hey, I need to get my older brother

out of customs. I think the plot of Die Hard

4 is better than the plot of Lethal Weapon 4,

but overall, I would pick Lethal 4 in this instance.

I enjoy watching that one better than Die Hard

4. Steve, we'll give you a chance to talk finally.

Sorry. I prefer Die Hard 4. I actually like this

lethal weapon more so than some of the previous

ones. And this Die Hard, I wouldn't go so far

as... It's not better than the first one, obviously,

but it's better than the second one. And I am

assuming it's better than the fifth one at this

point. But I like the fact that it's modern day.

I like the fact that it's his typical character.

Overall, I find even though the recurring theme

of bleeding everyone dry of their money in that

series, even though there's that, I find it funny

that the whole thing is kind of something that

could basically happen. And you have him kind

of in the middle of it just by happy accident.

basically being bored and bothering his daughter

out in the middle of nowhere. So it gives kind

of a little bit of a family element there, but

not really so much. Lethal Weapon 4, you get,

like you guys said, all the family. You get Chris

Rock in there. You get, of course, the cast saying,

I'm getting too old for this shit and stuff like

that. I find myself enjoying Die Hard more in

this essence just because I just enjoy the one

centric, more so hero of the day, if you can

call him that, and the fact that he throws a

police car into a helicopter and so on. I find

it more of a fun action film. Even if it doesn't

quite connect all the way with the rest of the

Die Hard films as it could have, there's still

enough there to pull it back in. So I'm going

to have to vote live for your Die Hard. All right.

So that is six rounds through so far. We've gotten

through all of the movies that we're going to

cover. Like I said, we're not going to cover

really in too much depth the fifth diehard one.

So we're going to send our combatants back to

their corners for a second so they can get some

words of advice from their ringmen and whatnot

before we continue this 20 -round heavyweight

fight. So stick with us. Good morning, sir. Tell

me, what day is it? What day? Now I have a machine

gun. Ho, ho, ho. Alright, so they've got their

advice and they've got water down here, so it's

time to continue the heavyweight bout. And what

better way to do that than with our seventh category,

which is the original bad guy. We have Alan Rickman

as Hans Gruber versus Gary Busey as Mr. Joshua.

Which franchise has the better iconic villain,

Mike? It's so hard to choose. It's right here.

It's yeah. Because like the other films in the

franchises, the other four films with each of

the franchises. Okay. Sure. Uh, Simon or yeah.

Yeah. Simon was a good, bad guy, but man, the

main one. I like Alan Rickman for all of his

sarcasm and just the way he smiles as Hans and

just the way he portrays being stupid when he

meets up with John. I like that. With Mr. Joshua,

again, you have continuity with Riggs because

somehow they're linked with being in the same

special forces. Something like that, yeah. Somehow

they're linked, and they just turn into mortal

enemies. I like all of his lines at the same

time. I like both of them. I think the person

that adds more to the individual film, though,

for me at least, is Hans Gruber. He runs the

show. He is the end -all, be -all that we're

after this whole entire time. He's the one calling

the shots. Mr. Josh was probably more intimidating

of a character or kind of more of a scary character.

But for me, Alan Rickman's the one that adds

more to the movie. So my vote's going to be for

Alan Rickman, Hans Gruber, and Die Hard on this.

But they are both crazy good bad guys. What about

you, Steve? I'm going to also have to vote Hans

Gruber because... He just plays a bad guy or

just kind of a dark, kind of shadowy character

really well. You know, Alan Rickman is... I mean,

granted, a lot of his characters have the same

kind of way they carry themselves to some extent,

but I just liked his persona of this character.

You know, I'm a civilized, you know... guy you

know kind of villain but he's you know not afraid

to get his hands dirty I agree Mike um yeah I

gotta go with I gotta go with Hans because Mr.

Joshua is following the orders of um Edward Montgomery.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's a Dermot and Greg reference,

because Mitchell Ryan was the dad in that. But

anyway, it's one of those things where Mr. Joshua

is following orders. Even though he is the main

antagonist, he is still a soldier following an

order. And he's like, oh, yes, sir, yes, sir,

yes, sir, general, or whatever. He's a yes man

to this guy. And he doesn't really... I would

have found it more plausible for him being a

bad guy if it was him. Doing the water shock

treatment to Riggs, not the big, dumb, fat guy

or whatever. You know what I mean? It's like,

get your hands dirty, dumbass. It's not our fault

you used your nose. But yeah, Hans Gruber, hands

down, out of these two, he's so much more ruthless

and conniving, and he will kill people no matter

what. Hans, boobie, you know. You know, but yeah,

Hans Gruber, hands down. All right, so that does

it for round number seven. Going into round number

eight, we're dealing with the women of the franchise.

Now, you can look at this any way you want to.

You can look at it as who are the better characters,

who are the more likable characters, who are

the hotter women. I don't care how you look at

it, but we're looking at the women of both franchises.

So for Die Hard, you're basically looking at

his one -time wife, his daughter, and a couple

bad women, actually. Mylon and Irina from the

latest movie. As far as Lethal Weapon, you're

dealing with a lot of Riggs' women that he falls

for. You have Rika Vanden Haas, who, you know,

it's never good to be one of Riggs' women, because

you'll end up dead, usually. You have Rene Russo's

character. You have the Doctor. the psychiatrist

that was always trying to get Riggs to sit down

and be good about things. So, Mike, what are

your thoughts on the women of both franchises?

The women of Die Hard, I think that, you know,

I think it's great that they brought the daughter

in and they've got a really great actress in

Mary Elizabeth Winstead playing her in Die Hard

4. His wife... Really, the best thing she ever

did was when she punched out... Yeah, the reporter.

The principal. Richard Thornburg. I was thinking

Lindbergh for some stupid reason, but no, it's

Richard Thornburg. Maggie Q, as Mei Lin, was

probably the best one. diehard as far as the

villain and she was just so badass. John was

pretty much taunting Gabriel with, yeah, when

are you going to get another one of those chicks?

That was just amazing. For Lethal Weapon though,

I gotta go with Lorna Cole because she is pretty

much the female. You think that she's just going

to be a regular stick up your ass internal affairs

officer. But no, she really wants to find what's

really going on. And she wants, you know, she's

not just out to shut them down. I like her. Amanda

Hunsaker, I don't count her at all. I know, I

just had to put her on there. I don't count her

because, well, yeah, but she was in one scene,

she jumped off the building, and then she was

in a videotape later, so I don't really count

her. I love the dynamic between Riggs and Stephanie

Woods. It's so amazing and so awesome. I think

the women of Lethal Weapon are more memorable

across the board, whether they're in one scene

or whether they're a main character, they just

make more of an impact for me. Whereas some of

the women from Die Hard I kind of forget about.

Yeah, pretty much. The only woman you didn't

really list in here is that butch -looking chick

from With a Vengeance that is Simon's wench.

But not that she really matters either way. But

yeah, on this one, I picked Lethal Weapons women.

Steve, any thoughts on the women? I'm going to

have to go... Her. I'm just going to vote Die

Hard. Just to mess with Mike. Because I have

no preference here, for the most part. Alright.

Fair enough. Then let's move on to round nine.

What was your vote? Oh, I vote Lethal Weapon.

for freaking Rika Vanden Haas. Yeah. Not a big

Rene Russo fan, but like I said, I just think

it made more of an impact. In that character,

she's damn good. And then the next round, we're

looking at all of the other bad characters. I

mean, we looked at Alan Rickman and Gary Busey,

but there was a lot of other epic and iconic

bad characters in this franchise, both franchises.

So Die Hard, we're talking about Alexander Gudanov

as Carl. We have General Ramon Esperanza, Simon

Peter Gruber, obviously the one played by Jeremy

Irons, and then the two newer ones, Thomas Gabriel,

played by... Timothy Alphont, and Yuri Komarov,

played by Sebastian Koch. The big ones for me

here, or the big one, is obviously Simon. Maybe

Carl, a little bit. And then for Lethal Weapon,

you had Mitchell Ryan as General Peter McAllister,

Joss Acklin as Rudd, Arjun Rudd. diplomatic community.

Derek O 'Connor as Pieter Vorstedt. Stuart Wilson

as Jack Travis. Kim Chan, or not Kim Chan, that

was not supposed to be there. Jet Li as Hwa -Sin

Koo. So those were kind of the other bad characters.

So Mike, what do you think? Who had the better

bad guys? Which franchise? Overall, I gotta say

Lethal Weapon. While I do love Simon Gruber and

Thomas Gabriel, Like, Carl? Really? Like, Trevette

was a better... Carl was, oh my god, they killed

my brother. I'm going to murder him. To me, it's

like, if you add the main bad guys, if you add

Alan Rickman and Gary Busey, it may be enough

to sway it to die hard, because then you get

Alan Rickman and... But when you take those main

two ones out and you're left with all the side

ones or the secondary ones, to me, just Jet Li,

Joss Acklin, and Mitchell Ryan, Lethal Weapon

has the better secondary bad guys for me. And

the reason why it has the better secondary bad

guys is because Peter Vorstead, the other South

African, He was the one that basically told Riggs

that his wife was, like, that's why Riggs has

all, it's not just that he wants to get Rudd.

It's that once he finds that out, he's like,

I'm going after these fuckers, Rog. I'm taking

my truck. I'm going to hook it up to their stilt

house, and I'm going to pull that fucker down.

Yeah. That whole thing, and that's what's so

great about Lethal Weapon 2 is that you see the

character development in Rigs, and you see why

that is and what happens with that. So I have

to pick Lethal Weapon 2's back up. It's interesting

that both franchises, you get the diplomats,

and then you get the hired guns, or just the

badass action star against them. So they each

have similar types. Steve, which bad guys do

you like out of these franchises? Honestly, for

the secondaries, I'm going to have to go with

Lethal Weapon just because the guys that are

there, not only the actors, but just their characters

in general were just better evil characters.

I mean, the other ones were like one dimensional.

I mean, they were just kind of there. No, I completely

agree, and I think that you just have more memorable

faces and more memorable characters that are

birthed in the Lethal Weapon franchise. Outside

of the Groobers, I think Die Hard falls a little

short, as far as the bad characters go. Oh, yeah,

most definitely. So, round 10. halfway point

here is the rest of the characters that we find

in these franchises. You know, it might not be

the women or the bad characters, but just who

else shows up? I guess the highlights for me

for Die Hard, number one would be Sergeant Al

Powell, would be Zeus Carver. These are Samuel

L. Jackson and Reginald L. Johnson. Those are

the main ones. You do have the cop that's in

all of them. And this one, which would be, what

you said, Richard Thornburg? You mean the reporter?

I'm sorry, the reporter and the cop. Captain,

not, who's the... You left him off of here. What

the hell is wrong with you? You left... The damn

principal from freaking Breakfast Club. Yeah,

Dwayne, no, no, no, there he is. Dwayne T. Robinson.

Yes, so you have him, he's kind of a recurring...

This is the first film. Yeah, the first one as

the head cop of... in charge of mclean you got

the reporter and then you got like i said the

the dad from uh family matters and samuel jackson

so those are kind of the highlights i mean you

do have kevin smith and dennis ron's a couple

other people but you know uh and then lead the

weapon it's the main recurring ones here uh obviously

our leo gets danny glover gets put in here with

roger murtaugh uh captain murphy he's what's

that Captain Murphy's in multiple films. He's

in them all, actually. So you have more variety

and more number of characters in the Diehards

because most of them are only in one film. In

Lethal Weapon, you're going to have less characters

because most of them are in two, three, four

films. Yeah. I've got to give it to Die Hard

on this one. While I love... I just don't agree

with... I know why you did it. I get why you

did it. I don't agree with putting Danny Glover

or Roger Murtaugh as the supporting... He's not

a supporting cast member in those films. He's

a lead. But I understand why, for the purposes

of this episode, that you did that. As far as

the Die Hard ones, you've got so many memorable

ones there. Paul Gleeson, William Atherton, Reginald

L. Johnson, Dennis Franz. You've got so many

memorable ones there. And in Lethal Weapon, you've

got Chris Rock, Joe Pesci, Danny Gleeson. I'm

going to give it to Die Hard on this. They have

slightly better supporting characters because

of what roles the supporting characters play

in each one of the films. I think you had so

much potential there, though. The crime of Die

Hard is that you don't see some of these characters

more. Right, exactly. Because there are some

really good characters. Go ahead, Steve. As far

as the secondary characters, I just... I find

the supporting cast for Die Hard just much more...

I mean, both sets are memorable, don't get me

wrong. But I like the secondary characters in

Die Hard a lot. However, you almost have to go

with Lethal Weapon, too, just because, I mean,

Murtaugh and, you know, Leo Getz, who are in

all of them. And then... So, I mean, it's kind

of a toss -up there, but I think that for staying

power through the films, I'd have to say Lethal

Weapon wins it just because they stick around

longer in two films. That's true. And I think

that's, like I said, kind of the crime of Die

Hard is they create some of these very memorable,

likable characters, and then they don't ever

let them come back. Now, I know McClane's in

different areas and different locations, etc.,

etc., but it would have been cool to have a little

bit more connection between them. Yeah, I mean,

I'm going to give a vote to Die Hard, I guess,

just because there's so many different people

that, you know, there's something for everybody.

But I do like what Lethal Weapon did with their

characters better. So going into round 11, which

is basically, which is the better premise overall?

What is the better backstory? What is the better

idea for a movie? If someone was coming to your

studio and they were pitching the idea for Die

Hard or pitching you the idea of Lethal Weapon

without any of these actors, without any of the

stuff we see, they're just pitching you the story

idea. Which one would you have been more interested

in, Mike? If they're pitching me all four Lethal

Weapon films as an ongoing story? We're going

to do a franchise of movies about buddy cops.

One's crazy. One's older and near retirement

compared to... We're going to pitch you a story

about... And make a difference. Yeah. Honestly,

I... I got to go with Lethal Weapon because...

It has more... Throughout the four films, if

someone just said, we're going to make four films,

they're all going to connect to each other in

one way or another, and they're going to tell

a story, I would go with that more, because the

Die Hard films, each of those films, while they're

all... One, three, and four have their moments,

and they're great moments, the other two, two

and five, just almost don't even fit at all.

And they have, it's basically one guy thrown

into a situation every time. We don't really

have, as we've said, yes, we have the character

of John McClane and what he stands for and how

he, his McClane -isms are, but it's pretty much,

you know, a day in the life of Empire City against,

you know, it's... It's one of those things where

it's just one cop thrown into a situation, whereas

I got to vote lethal here because it's the better

story. I don't necessarily disagree that it might

be the better story, but if I'm getting pitched

those two ideas, I think, especially in the time

period, late 80s, that they're getting pitched,

for me, if someone pitches the idea of lethal

weapon, it's something where I would be like,

what makes this different than all the other

buddy cop films we've seen? To me, it's not the

premise that makes Lethal Weapon. It's really

the characters that make it work because otherwise

it's just one of a dozen buddy cop films. Whereas

the other one, it's like someone's pitching me

the idea of Die Hard in that time period. Yeah,

I've seen situations where we have one action

hero, like in an Arnold movie or whatever, Jean

-Claude Van Damme or whoever, where it's one

guy that just takes on everything. But I haven't

seen it in the fact where... we're going to have

this situation where everything gets thrown at

this cop, this one cop who's not on duty, who

doesn't have the protection of his police force,

et cetera, but we're just going to have this

one police officer who's going to have to battle

everything. He's going to have to be, you know,

it's like you're rooting for the underdog, like

this guy that, yeah, he's a cop, but you don't

expect him to be like a superhero. So to me at

the time when these were pitched and what else

was out there, I probably would have been more

interested in the premise of Die Hard. just because

it seemed like it would be more unique. So that's

where I'm going to go with this one. Steve, you

have to break the tie. I'm going diehard because

I like not only the premise, but I like the one

cop against all odds. He has helping hands, but

it's still so different than the buddy cop. And

it's different than one superhero or one gladiator

-type strongman. Yeah, just the normal guy. Yeah,

it's like a beat cop here. So I'm in agreement

with you. So that round will go to Die Hard,

which takes us to our next break so that our

combatants can get their rest and get their water.

You've got to stay hydrated. So stick with us,

and we will be back to finish this heavyweight

bout. Mind if we hear some tunes? Hey, gotta

work. You got any Christmas music? This is Christmas

music. All right, so remember back in the opening

when I said that not all... topics and rounds

would be super serious. Well, that's a good thing

to bring back up here as we get to round 12,

which is, well, everyone knows that these are

Christmas movies, right? The Christmas Spirit

round. Which movie had more Christmas spirit?

Which movie is more of a Christmas movie? Well,

let's break it down a little bit real quickly

before you guys give us your votes. Opening Christmas

Carol, Die Hard really didn't have any, but they

did have Christmas in Hollis run by Run DMC in

the limo. at one point. Lethal Weapon started

off with Jingle Bell Rock. Gets us in the mood

before we switch to an ominous score over a topless

girl launching herself from a 20 -story building.

So they did have some Christmas songs there.

Characters in the Christmas spirit. Die Hard.

John McClane whistles Jingle Bells when he first

arrives at Nakatomi Tower. And Lethal Weapon,

we have a quintet of police officers practicing

a rendition of Silent Night a cappella in the

precinct. How about Christmas set pieces? Die

Hard. Mr. Takagi throws a heck of a Christmas

bash on the 30th floor. Lethal Weapon, the Murtaugh

home is decked out for the season. Riggs participates

in a harrowing firefight in a Christmas tree

lot. How about the best Christmas gag? Diehard

Hans Gruber discovers one of his thugs dead in

an elevator strapped to a chair with a Santa

hat and, quote, now I have a machine gun. Ho,

ho, ho, scrawled in blood on his sweater. Lethal

Weapon, Mr. Joshua enters the Murtaugh residence

looking for blood when he finds a Christmas carol

playing and Ebenezer Scrooge asking, what day

is it? He shoots out the TV and yells, It's goddamn

Christmas. See, Mike, you didn't realize these

movies were Christmas movies. How about a closing

Christmas carol? Die Hard, Let It Snow. Cute.

As paper falls from the sky from the exploded

top floors of Nakatomi Tower and lethal weapon

you have, I'll be home for Christmas. Sweet.

As Riggs joins the Murtaugh clan for Christmas

dinner. There is so much Christmas about these

movies, more than I ever thought. Which movie

is more in the Christmas spirit, Mike? Um...

Lethal Weapon. I'm sorry. Die Hard is a movie

that takes place at Christmas. It's not a Christmas

movie. Neither is Lethal Weapon. They're action

films for Christmas. Exactly. They're action

films that just happen to be set during Christmas

time. There you go. I don't know. I just thought

it was funny that they had this many different...

Christmas things that some of them I even forgot

about. I almost have to give it to Lethal Weapon

just for freaking Mr. Joshua saying it's goddamn

Christmas as he shoots the damn TV. But I do

remember all the Die Hard with Bruce Willis whistling

the Christmas tunes and Let It Snow playing as

the paper's falling. Steve, which one's the better

Christmas spirit? Die Hard. I have to say that

just because you have two films around that time.

Yeah, and that's what I'm going to give it to.

You have two different films during the Christmas

time compared to just the one for the Lethal

Weapon. So I will give this crazy category to

Die Hard as well. And then we'll move on to what

should be a very quick and easy round, which

is round 13. Which franchise has the better catchphrase?

Lethal Weapons, I'm getting too old for this

shit. Or Die Hards, yippee -ki -yay, motherfucker.

Mike? This shouldn't even be thinking about it.

You know, it's funny. Mike says one of them all

the time. Yeah, I... Just go ahead. I know which

one you're going to say just because you say

it all the time. I'm going to go with Die Hard

this time around. Oh, you broke the curse. Fuck

you. Well, because it's one of those things that

everyone knows the line, not only the regular

line, Yippee -ki -yay, motherfucker, but they

also know from the edited version of Die Hard

2, Yippee -ki -yay, Mr. Falcon. Everyone knows

that. Everyone says that. As far as I'm getting

too old for this shit, it's a great line and

everything else, and it completes the story of

throughout those four films, but I gotta give

it to Die Hard this time. Steve. Die Hard. And

Die Hard. Come on, that's one of the most iconic

phrases of our generation. And he uses it more

in one film. Yeah, it's just awesome. It's iconic.

So we'll move on to, it is a very close fight

coming on so far. We're going on to round 14,

which may also be somewhat easy to tell here,

but which movie had the better action sequences?

Both of them had a lot of action sequences. I

can think of Lethal Weapon when they're pulling

the house down from the stilts. You know, there's

that cool scene in the front yard of Murtaugh's

house when Riggs and Watcher McCall are going

at it. You know, Die Hard has a lot of, you know,

the action scene with the plane, etc. Mike, which

film franchise had the better action sequences?

Any film that has an exploding toilet wins it.

You know, as an aside story real quick, when

I was a kid, I... I watched that scene and I

actually decided that I needed to... I thought

I caught a glimpse of something in that scene.

And I had to go back and actually pause play

it frame by frame when the toilet is flying through

the air. And you can actually see shit in the

toilet. Yeah, I know. Sorry. It's disturbing.

But no, overall... If you're just looking at

which film has the more explosions or the better

explosions, it would go to Die Hard. But if you're

looking at action overall in four films, I don't

know. I've got to give it to Lethal because it's

got some amazing stuff there. You know, you've

got, what was it? Yeah, Lethal Weapon 3. The

police officer, the lady police officer, hey,

I'm going to take a swim. Boom! off the diving

board. So I got to give it to Lethal in this

one. How about you, Steve? I'm giving it to Die

Hard just because who the fuck throws a car into

a helicopter? Yeah. To me, Lethal Weapon has

maybe some of the more memorable individual scenes,

but if you're taking it overall, I think Die

Hard has more of them, like more action scenes

overall. and that's what it's known for. It is

the action film, so I've got to give this one

to Die Hard as well. And we will flip the script

with round 15 then. Which film's funnier? Which

film franchise is funnier, Mike? Lethal Weapon,

hands down. Because they are centered around...

It's a buddy cop. Buddy cop films are naturally

funny. Right, exactly. Where Die Hard, yes, McClane

has some funny lines. Yes, some of the villains

have some funny lines, but it's not... The Die

Hard franchise takes itself more seriously. I

mean, the funniest stuff that happens in the

Die Hard things that I can think of that would

make it a comedy is when Kevin Smith opens his

mouth in Die Hard 4. You know, that's pretty

much... the comedy of those movies, but Lethal

Weapon does the comedy better. Alright, fair

enough. I have to also agree that Lethal Weapon

is the funnier film series. Yeah, as Mel Gibson

takes the cake there, and then you add in people

like Chris Rock and Joe Pesci, it's a hands -down

comedy for Lethal Weapon for me, and obviously

expected action to go Die Hard's way and comedy

to go Lethal Weapon's way, so that was kind of

a wash, but we just had to sell it either way,

which takes us to the next round, which may seem

superficial, but which franchise had the better

movie posters? Die hard. Die hard. Slash trailers,

slash marketing, slash whatever you want to say,

but especially the movie posters. So you guys

are both going die hard. Okay, well, if you're

just talking posters, die hard. If you're talking

about trailers and teasers and whatever else,

I can't choose between those because they equally

had both. It depends on the film. It depends

on the film, but like you said, with the opening.

of Lethal Weapon 1. Mel Gibson is a Lethal Weapon.

But Die Hard, as far as just the posters, it

has the better looking posters out of the four

films. I thought the Lethal Weapon 1 movie poster

was good. And then I think after that it just

kind of gets generic. Well, it's a repeat of

the same thing. It's just with color and then

they zoom out. Or add more people. I'm going

to go back up to the film section. With Die Hard,

okay, sure, it's one guy against the world. With

Lethal Weapon, it's, hey, let's do black and

white and red all over with Riggs and Murtaugh.

It's funny, though, how similar the first two

posters are. For Lethal, yeah. No, Lethal Weapon

won and Die Hard won. Yeah, you have Murtaugh

with his gun pointing up, and they're almost

paralleling each other. Right, but if you look

at Lethal 1 and Lethal 2, they're pretty much

the same. That's what I'm saying. It gets generic.

They're doing the same thing over and over again.

Yeah, and then, you know, 3 you add in Pesci,

and then 4 you add in the entire cast, where

Die Hard 4 is just bald Bruce Willis. Yeah. I

love that. No, no, wait, wait, wait. I love that.

Die Hard, the original Die Hard, he has hair.

Die Hard 2, he has hair that glows like a fire.

Die Hard 3, he's got hair still, and then by

the 4th, oh! He went bald. Okay, so I think we're

all going Die Hard on the movie posters. They're

just a little more creative all the way through.

This one's one that you kind of have to think

about because it's so hard to think because we're

all just so accustomed to it's Die Hard, it's

Lethal Weapon. We're just used to those names.

But when they came up with the original titles

to these first movies, what was the more ingenious

title? Die Hard or Lethal Weapon? Steve, you

go. Well, for me, this is kind of a wash in a

sense because Die Hard, granted that's kind of

a vague but simple action film title, but they

have subtitles with each film. Whereas Lethal

Weapon is just an extra numerical number on it,

whereas Die Hard only did that for the second

film, but they still had a subtitle. But as far

as breaking down the basic titles, Die Hard vs.

Lethal Weapon, as far as the title, Lethal Weapon

sounds more action -packed than just Die Hard.

It just draws more attention to that title. But

at the same time, like I said at Watch, it's

just because one adds just a numerical... And

the other had subtitles. I love the fact when

some people find it just stupidly cheesy and

whatnot. But I love the fact when movies don't

just do a two, three, four or whatever. When

the name, because Die Hard lends itself to do

different things with it. And so I like that

it's die harder or die hard with a vengeance

or live free or die hard or, you know, it's a

good day to die hard. Like, I like that they

do those things. And I think other films have

had that option and they just like, oh, we're

just going to put a three or four. Now, Lethal

Weapon, I don't know what else you could have

done with that. But I do respect and kind of

have, I like when someone plays with the title

and then puts the die hard within a phrase. I

like that. But yeah, if we're just going to like

the initial title, you know. I'm going to pitch

you a movie called Die Hard, or I'm going to

pitch you a movie called Lethal Weapon. I'm kind

of torn. Mike, what do you think? I agree that

Die Hard made a good use of the subtitling up

to the third film. Oh, shut up. No, you shut

up. The fourth film was good, too, but the fifth

film is just terrible. It sounds like a Klingon

ripoff. It sounds like a Bond movie. Well, that's

what I'm saying. Well, a good day to die hard,

that's a good day to die is a Klingon phrase.

That's what I'm saying, is that the first three

Die Hard movies, the first one is just Die Hard,

Die Hard 2, Die Harder, because you're putting

him into another situation, Die Hard with a Vengeance,

because you've got Simon coming back to revenge

against... You know, and then when you get to

live free or die hard, okay, I get why they called

it that because of, oh, it takes place in Washington.

Oh, where Thomas Gabriel is going to take away

everyone's freedom. I get why they did that.

I still think Die Hard 4 .0, even if you added

a subtitle to it, you know, cyber terror, just

add some sort of, you know. subtitle to that,

it would have been better. A Good Day to Die,

I nearly plots to myself when I saw it. It's

just so stupid. Well, it's kind of jumped the

shark after the fourth film. I know. Now, if

you did subtitles with Lethal Weapon, okay, Lethal

Weapon 1 could just be Lethal Weapon 1. If you

did Lethal Weapon 2 and added a subtitle to it,

same thing with 3 and 4, I think it would have

been better. But I like the simplicity of Lethal

Weapon, and as Kevin said, which one out of just

the regular titles are you more apt to look at?

And the fact that Mel Gibson was a lethal weapon,

that to me says that I pick that over Die Hard.

Die Hard is the one that like, oh, that's kind

of a creative name. Like that's something unique

or whatever. Lethal Weapon, it's like one of

those, like how was that not a movie already?

Exactly, yeah. So official votes. I know we kind

of went back and forth, but Mike, official vote.

Lethal. Steve? As much as it kills me, I'm going

to have to go with Lethal. Man, I want to give

it to Die Hard just for the creativity, but Lethal

Weapon seems like it makes more sense. Like I

said, if you're going for the subtitles, then

Die Hard wins. But if you're going for just basic

first film, initial thought, then Lethal Weapon.

Fair enough. All right. Then we're getting down

to the nitty gritty here overall. And then I

think I know where we're going with this one.

I didn't know going into this one. I didn't know

where we were going to go with this, but after

hearing everybody's talk, I have a pretty good

idea, but overall continuity of the franchise,

Mike. Okay. I'm going to start with diehard.

If you take out and I'm not. I'm not saying anything

against Die Hard 5. I haven't seen it yet. But

so far, from what I've read online and from what

I've seen in the trailers, the only continuity

bits is that the daughter is there for half a

scene and then the son comes in. But if you take

out 2 and 5, 1, 3, and 4 have the continuity

for Die Hard. Two and five seem to be your average

action movie type things, even though two still

kind of, oh, hey, John McClane's in another situation

he can't get out of. Lethal Weapon 4, as I stated

before, is one all -inclusive story because it

takes two characters. It introduces us to their

past, specifically with Riggs in the second film.

And in the fourth film with Roger, because you've

got the whole side angle of smuggling Chinese

people. And then he's talking about forefathers

and his founding, you know, and the watch and

all. So I got to give it to Lethal on the continuity

because it tells a four film part story. To me,

this is how I break this one down as far as continuity

goes. Look at Die Hard. John McClane is the only

character that's involved in all four films.

All right. You have no characters that are involved

in three of the four films. Right. You have his

daughter is in two, his ex -wife is in two, Thornburg's

in two, and Al Powell, Reginald Val Johnson is

in two. He's technically in one and a half, because

he's only on the phone, but he's still in two.

So that's what you have there. If you look at

Lethal Weapon, Mel Gibson, he's in all four.

Obviously, Danny Glover's in all four. Those

are givens. Trish Murtaugh is in all four. Rianne

Murtaugh's in all four. Nick Murtaugh, Carrie

Murtaugh are in all four. Captain Ed Murphy is

in all four. Dr. Stephanie Woods is in all four.

Joe Pesci's in three. And Rene Russo's in two.

Yeah. So, like, that right there says it all

for me. Like, continuity -wise, from one through

four, there's more connections made throughout

the Lethal Weapon franchise for me. Steve, what

are your thoughts? I have to agree on all accounts

that everything you guys have mentioned has been

100 % valid. I have to say that Lethal Weapon

has the stronger continuity between them. All

right, we're down to the final two rounds in

this 20 -round fight. I know this one seems silly,

but both of these franchises revolve around police

forces at one point or the other. Both John McClane

and Riggs and Murtaugh, etc., are all police

officers at one point or another. They all work

for a police force, etc. So, if you're looking

at the police forces that they're involved with,

the LAPD and the NYPD, who's a part of the superior

police force, Mike? The problem with this is

the same problem that pitting these two franchises

together. has you've got one lone cop from the

nypd the only time we ever really see the nypd

is in with a vengeance you don't see that like

it's the all of the other films are john by himself

doing stuff you know um i gotta give it to lapd

because you see them throughout as you said the

captain is there throughout The police psychologist

is there throughout. Lorna's in there for two

movies. I got to give it to LAPD because we only

see the NYPD once. And as great as the bomb disposal

dude is and funny as he is, it just... Well,

you could look at it that one of two ways. You

could look at it that we see more of the lethal

weapon, the LAPD. force and lethal weapon movies,

so that makes it better. Or you could say that

you see them and you get to see all their flaws

and all the red tape and bureaucracy and nonsense

that you have to deal with as well. So it might

expose more problems with it, too. So, you know,

just because one was more present doesn't necessarily

mean it was better. So, I mean, I can see it

kind of both ways. They both trained some badass

police guys, though. So, I don't know, I kind

of go back and forth, because you do see a lot

of the weaknesses in the LAPD as well, as seeing

some of the strengths. Right. Steve? I have no

preference, because I just don't care for the

cops' parts, but I'd have to say I'll just agree

with you guys on LAPD. Well, and the other reason

why I picked the LAPD is, again, because of the

precursor scenes in 3 and 4 with Lethal Weapon.

Because in Lethal Weapon 3, Raj, it's a bomb.

Let's call it Bomb Squad. No, I can diffuse it.

Red wire, blue wire. Red. No blue. Red. And then

the whole thing with the LAPD in Lethal Weapon

is more prominent. Yes, I agree with you. It

shows, at least in the first film, it shows the

incompetence with Dwayne and all that with Paul

Gleeson's character. We don't have that because

John McClane is the lone cop. We don't get that,

again, the buddy cop aspect with the rest of

the four. So I have to pick the LAPD. All right.

Then it is time for the last round here, round

number 20, which usually what we do here is we

just kind of go through an overall franchise

vote. If you had to pick what is the better franchise,

what is your favorite franchise, et cetera, out

of Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. What is a superior

franchise, Mike? Lethal Weapon. Because while

I love the Die Hard franchise, I love them as

individual films. Outside of 1 and 3, I love

Die Hard 2 for its individuality story. Same

thing with Die Hard 4. Yes, there is continuity

in there, but Lethal Weapon franchise is superior

because for me, it's one continuous story. And

they have cases throughout those four stories.

Steve, what's the superior franchise in your

opinion? Well, I'm kind of stuck there as far

as continuity in FC Lethal Weapon, but as far

as overall enjoyability for me and for just sheer

fun and... you know, kind of like brainless rewatchability

or whatever, I'd have to say Die Hard. Okay.

Fair enough. For me, it's kind of, I like both

parts of it. I like Lethal Weapon for the reasons

Mike states. I like Die Hard for the reasons

Steve states. But for me, what it comes down

to is, and I guess it's unfair because it kind

of goes back to our first category, who do I

want to watch more of? Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson

and I know he's got a bad rap these days but

I'd rather watch Mel Gibson any day of the week

I don't know what it is about him but his characters

that he plays just like really fascinate me and

for me that kind of sways it a little bit towards

Lethal Weapon those are the movies that I got

even though I love love love Die Hard and I'm

you know I love the character of John McClane

overall I'd rather watch Lethal Weapon So my

vote's going to go for lethal weapons. So the

round is over, and it's going to the judges.

So we're going to have to check the judges' scorecard,

and we will be back right after this with the

final tallies. I watched 60 Minutes. I say to

myself, these guys are professional. They're

motivated. They're happening, i .e., they want

something, huh? Now, personally, I couldn't care

less about your politics. Maybe you're pissed

off at the Camel Jockeys, maybe it's the Heves,

Northern Ireland. It's none of my business. I

figure you're here to negotiate. Am I right?

You're amazing. You figured this all out already.

Hey, business is business. You use a gun, I use

a fountain pen. What's the difference? Let's

put it in my terms. You're here to hostile takeover.

You grab us for some green mail, but you didn't

expect some poison pill was going to be running

around in the building. Am I right? Hans. Boobie,

I'm your white knight. Remember when we first

met John McClane? Argyle picked him up from the

plane And took him down to Nakatomi Tower To

meet with Holly He came to get her back and to

be her man But Hans and his buddies fucked up

the plan And that's about when everything went

sour At the Christmas party And the terrorists

were overzealous But it was sweet when they killed

Ellis And with a little help So we've got the

results back from the three different judges

that were scoring ringside here. It's a pretty

close one. It was down to the wire. If you go

on overall categories, the score is 11 to 9.

And if you go on individual votes, the score

is 34 to 26. With the winner of this GCR and

Wars battle being the Superior Franchise. is

Lethal Weapon. By two categories, by eight votes,

Lethal Weapon tops Die Hard in this ultimate

battle royale. And the internet let out a cry

of, oh my fucking god, what have you people done?

It's only the second time I've gotten shafted

on my winner. I know most people will disagree

with us, but we've broken it down, people. Come

on, we even compared Christmas Spirit. So, yeah.

So that is how we have come to a conclusion.

Mike, what else do we want to say here? Anything?

No, final thoughts for me. I love both franchises

equally, as I stated before. I love the Die Hard

films for their individuality. As I said before,

yes, 1 and 3 and 4 and 5 kind of have continuity.

4 and 5 have continuity with the kids. 1 and

3 have continuity with the villains. 2 is just

a... Good standalone movie with Lethal Weapon.

I'm pretty much beating a dead horse here. I

love the overall continuity and character development

of all characters from the first movie to the

fourth movie. As far as watchability, Mel Gibson

versus Bruce Willis, I find myself now watching

more Bruce Willis films, not just in these franchises,

obviously. Like you said, you can watch Mel Gibson

any day of the week, but that's the beauty of

these two franchises. If you want to watch a

really good Bruce Willis movie or a really good

Mel Gibson movie, you pick one of these movies.

Most people will pick the original Die Hard.

I don't know what most people would... I want

people to sound off in the comments on this episode

out of Lethal Weapon. Which one would you most

want to watch? Because I can't pick one. I like

them all. I don't know. Steve, final thoughts?

Overall, I enjoy Bruce Willis films more than

I enjoy Mel Gibson films. Not saying that I don't

enjoy Mel Gibson's films, but I'm still sticking

to my guns. I'd rather watch Die Hard than Lethal

Weapon. And I think a lot of the people around

the internet would agree with you. But we did

not. But yeah, Die Hard usually gets the more

critical acclaim as being the better franchise.

Well, we hope you enjoyed this episode of GCRN

Wars, and we hope that you'll join us next time

when we're going to flip this script here. We're

doing something that we've never done before.

We're not pitting two geek topics against each

other. We're doing something very special, and

all I've got to say is, well, it'll be taking

place in March, and it's going to be madness.

It's tournament time, baby! For now, I am Optimus

Solo with... I'm Steve Megatron Phillips. Yippee

-ki -yay, motherfucker. That's it, really? That's

all you're gonna fucking say? That's where you

should put that quote in there. That's where

Mike's... Yeah, I knew Mike should have said

that. Yippee -ki -yay, Mr. Falcon. I'm getting

too old for this shit. Hello? Hello? Shit! Fucking

phones, man. You get a call, they cut you off.

You make a call, they cut you off. What's the

point? I never get... Don't you know what they're

doing, kid? They fuck you with cell phones. That's

what it is. They're fucking you with the cell

phone. They love when you get cut off. You know

why? Huh? You know why? Because when you call

back, which they know you're gonna do, they charge

you for that fucking first minute again at that

high rate. If you're lucky enough to be able

to call back because the three -hour battery

you got only lasts for 20 fucking minutes. Or

what if you're behind a fucking hill and it's

gone? Oh, you're going through a damn tunnel

or some shit, man, and they keep making it small.

You know why they make them this small? So you

can lose them. Why? So you have to buy more phones.

I never lost my mother's phone. Took you two

hours to make a damn long -distance call. Four.

Five. Oh, I messed up. Hang up. Gotta do it again.

Four. Five. I never lost my Sports Illustrated

swimsuit phone. And how about the fucking scanners?

These idiots, they get your phone number, and

then they make calls all over the world. Somebody

took my number and called Afghanistan. Afghanistan.

I don't know nobody in Afghanistan. I don't know

what fucking Afghanistan looked like. And even

if I did, I would not talk to that Afghan ass

for three hours. I won't talk to my daddy for

three hours. They fuck you, they fuck you, they

fuck you with their cell phones. Hey, you know

what happens when you go to a drive -thru? They

get you any... Hold on, hold on. Why am I talking...

Hold on. Leo Getz, private investigator. Private

investigator? Yeah. Yeah, Mr. Getz, I was wondering

if you would be willing to investigate my privates.

Investigate what? My privates, you stupid shit.

Shut the fuck up. Very funny, Riggs. You're costing

me a lot of money here. Yeah, at least three

bucks. Three dollars to answer a fucking call.

Fuck me with the cell phones, now you're fucking

me. You're pretty tough when you're on the phone,

aren't you, little fella? That's right, telephone

tough guy. Why am I talking to you on the phone?

Get the fuck out of here. Go home. You've just

listened to GCRN Wars on geekcastradio .com.

If you would like to leave feedback on the show,

there are many ways to do so. You can visit the

website geekcastradio .com where you can comment

on the episode in all of our different podcasts.

Be sure to rate our show on iTunes and leave

us feedback. Follow us on Twitter at Geekcast

Radio. Become a fan of us on Facebook by searching

Geekcast Radio Network. You can email us at feedback

at geekcastradio .com. Call the voicemail line

502 -526 -5821. Please remember to tell us the

show you were leaving the message for, and your

name. So until next time, ugly shruggy kid you.