Comparing Action Movie Franchises (Worldwide & Domestic Grosses)

And now for a comparison of the box office statistics instead of the critical ratings. Take these with a grain of salt, though, since I'm not aiming for absolute statistical accuracy. I'm using a combination of Wikipedia and IMDB stats and rounding them, so these are rough numbers. However, they're still accurate enough to get the trends across. The only major difference between the worldwide and domestic grosses seems to be the fact that "Die Hard with a Vengeance" did better than "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" worldwide, but did worse domestically.

Comparing Action Movie Franchises (Die Hard, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones)

As I wrote my previous blog post and started comparing movie franchises in my head, I wondered how they stacked up against one another over time in the ratings. I'm talking solely about their quality, not their box office revenue. So I went to Rotten Tomatoes and charted their trajectories according to the general consensus of professional critics.

"Die Hard" franchise includes:
"Die Hard" - 1988 (94%)
"Die Hard 2: Die Harder" - 1990 (65%)
"Die Hard with a Vengeance" - 1995 (50%)
"Live Free or Die Hard" - 2007 (82%)

"Mission Impossible" franchise includes:
"Mission Impossible" - 1996 (60%)
"Mission Impossible 2" - 2000 (57%)
"Mission Impossible 3" - 2006 (70%)

"Indiana Jones" franchise includes:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - 1981 (94%)
"Temple of Doom" - 1984 (85%)
"The Last Crusade" - 1989 (89%)
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" - 2008 (77%)

I don't entirely agree with all of these ratings, but they do manage to give you an idea of what direction each franchise has gone. The second "Die Hard" is in no way better than the third. "Live Free or Die Hard" suffers a lot of backlash among fans, but it deserves its rating. It was not the complete and utter mess people say it is, it just wasn't what they were expecting/wanting. And I think it's a downright travesty that "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is rated at 77% while "Mission Impossible: 3" stands at 70%. Not that MI3 needs to be that much higher, it's more like that last Indy movie was horrendous and superfluous.

12 years passed between the previous two "Die Hard" movies, while a whopping 19 years passed between the previous two "Indiana Jones" movies. To put even more weird perspective on this, when Sean Connery played Indiana Jones' father in "The Last Crusade," Connery was 58 years old. In "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," Harrison Ford was 65 years old. I love you Harrison Ford, but Bruce Willis and Tom Cruise can still handle being action stars while I think your time has come and gone. And really, with characters like Han Solo and Indiana Jones under your belt, you really shouldn't have to stoop to doing any more "Indiana Jones" movies today.

"Die Hard 5" - How about "Just Die Already...Hard"?

I adore "Die Hard." "Die Harder" was a big letdown. "Die Hard with a Vengeance" is pretty entertaining, and has Samuel L Jackson, so that's a plus. "Live Free or Die Hard" is very divisive but I fall on the side of loving every insane minute of it. But I do agree that it's not entirely a true "Die Hard" movie. John McClane was no longer the everyman, but the classic indestructible cop hero of action cinema.

Lately it's been announced that the next movie is about to be shot and is called "A Good Day to Die Hard." Really? That doesn't sound very badass. It will be set in Russia, which is helping sell it for me. I love a good action movie set in Russia, even though Russians as antagonists is a wildly outdated movie concept. Who knows, maybe it'll be set in Russia for some ridiculous reason but the whole country won't be portrayed as the villain. I don't know how they're going to get John McClane there, but I'm curious as hell to find out. Can we work Putin in here somehow? Yippi-ki-yay, comrade.

And now, according to this Variety article, they're searching for an actor to play McClane's son to take over the franchise. My first reaction was, 'because that worked so well for Indiana Jones.' My second immediate reaction was, 'why not just go with Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane?' I loved her in the fourth movie. Even though she had to be the damsel in distress, she held her own and I could definitely see her stepping up to the plate. I guess as long as they don't go with Shia LaBeouf, I'm good. It's just that I would really love to see them be unique and let a woman step up and take over. Why does this even have to continue though? Short answer, money. But creatively, the series just needs to end. With all the 80s remakes coming left and right, it's almost cliche to say it, but think of a new idea already! I just blogged about what to do when your favorite TV shows go downhill. Well, what do you do when a film franchise you loved starts going downhill?

Yes, I loved the last "Die Hard" entry, but what are the odds that this next one is any good? Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, considering this is all coming from a person who is counting down the days until "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol." Who cares if the franchise distances itself so far from its original premise that it's something entirely new? Can't it be a good action movie in its own right, even if it bears no resemblance to its predecessors? "Live Free or Die Hard" still had some call-backs to the other films. John McClane wasn't the vulnerable hero anymore, but in the end the villains were executing a highly convoluted, complicated scheme just to commit a robbery (like in "Die Hard"s 1 and 3). On one hand, we have the Indiana Jones franchise, that sputtered and turned out a crappy attempt to continue the series. On the other hand, we have the Mission Impossible franchise that came back with a very strong third installment and what looks like a solid fourth movie as well that will try to hand off the leading man role to Jeremy Renner. Perhaps this could work. (One thing that would certainly help is if they reinstated the R rating. Let the blood and swearing fly, McClane! I want a grown-up action movie, and an R gives it that freedom.)

No matter how this turns out, I still know where I'll be Valentine's Day of 2013 - going to a theater to see "A Good Day to Die Hard." And quite honestly, any day is a good day for "Die Hard." (So long as they don't fuck this up as bad as the last Indiana Jones movie!)

Hey, it's THAT guy! - Alan Dale

What with summer upon us and a small amount of actual, relevant television to talk about, I thought this would be a good time to start a new regular segment called "Hey, it's THAT guy!" One of the most annoying feelings is when you're watching a show or movie, and you see an actor that you just know you've seen a million times before. You feel like you should easily know their name by now, but nothing strikes a bell. I know more actors by name than most people, especially TV actors, but it still happens to me quite a bit and nothing is more frustrating than that tip-of-your-tongue feeling.
So, for my first segment, I decided to profile Alan Dale, who recently wrapped up a stint on "Lost" as the mysterious Charles Widmore. I was surprised to find out that he's actually from New Zealand originally, as he's an actor that ably juggles different accents. He first came to major fame for an Australian show called "Neighbours," that apparently became quite popular. Like most people, he eventually guested on "ER." Nowadays on American TV, he normally plays the role of "powerful douchebag," as seen in such roles as Charles Widmore on "Lost," Dr. Aaron Copley on "Torchwood," and Bradford Meade on "Ugly Betty." I particularly remember him from "Torchwood" as he was the powerful douchebag who shot and killed Owen Harper. He's played many roles in procedurals as well including "NCIS," "Law & Order: SVU," "Crossing Jordan," "CSI: Miami," "JAG," "The West Wing," and "The Practice." I'm ashamed to admit I don't remember him as Vice President Jim Prescott on "24," but then I remember how long ago I actually watched "24." I never watched a single episode of "The O.C.," but he was a regular on that show for a while as Caleb Nichol. He's primarily in television, although he did have a part in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." However, I think it's best if we just forget that movie ever existed.