Stupidity: Hans keeps a major part of his plan secret from his own team: that the electromagnetic lock will be disabled if the FBI shuts down power to the building. The mercenaries hired as muscle don't need to know the minutiae of the plan, but it seems ludicrous that Theo wasn't told. Theo states on more than one occasion that he can't proceed past a certain point and that he hopes Hans has a plan for the final lock. Evidently, Hans was keeping this information secret simply to amuse himself, which makes little sense considering how much planning went into the heist.
Ssiscool
4th Jan 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Or because he simply doesn't trust anyone with that kind of knowledge. He neither trusts them or cares about them, it's all him.
So he trusts that Theo would be on board with all the murder and mayhem, open all the other locks, be in a tactical lookout position when the police try to breach, and drive the getaway vehicle. But he doesn't trust Theo enough to tell him the last lock will open when the power goes out?
It's not about trust; Hans needs Theo to do what he is there for and that is all you mention up to the final lock. He has a plan for the final lock and so there's no need to discuss it with the team, since it won't be any of them responsible.
The more people that know the plan the more chances of someone talking. Especially when they are hired mercenaries.
Theo was already on board with taking hostages and committing murder. Him knowing that the power needed to be shut off to open the last lock doesn't appear to be particularly important information you would need to keep from someone to keep them from talking.
If he's the only one that knows the final step to get the money, then at least up until that moment he is absolutely indispensable to the plan and ensures no-one would double-cross him. In any case I'm not sure being more cautious than necessary really qualifies as "stupidity."
13th Dec 2019
Die Hard (1988)
Question: The armoured vehicle that gets sent in when the SWAT team are struggling to get in, before they're even attacked...what's that meant to actually achieve? If it's just meant to smash the doors, the men with guns could do that. And if not...will it just sit there?
Answer: I believe it is supposed to be that it was a precautionary measure and probably standard operating procedure to have it on site when dealing with a terrorist situation. To have it at the ready for if they needed it. Not only this, but a large armored vehicle like that could serve as physiological warfare to make the terrorist more fearful merely by it just being there. A show of strength. As for using it on the door, yes, guys with guns can smash those doors. But guys with guns are still targets to be shot at especially though glass doors. The armored vehicle can smash through it and get the men inside without exposing them to small arms fire.
But why send the armoured car into the lobby before being attacked? And why send it in in the first place? Once it's in the lobby it becomes a sitting duck. Easy pickings for when the occupants decide to disembark.
In some cases, maybe. But the vehicle itself still provides cover for the men in it. They usually would exit from the back or the top, and have that as something to hide against or shoot from. Also, most armored SWAT vehicles like that usually have a very high powered water cannon on the top that has the pressure of a fire truck. This can quickly subdue any hostile forces and knock their defenses down, giving the SWAT ample time to make their move while the enemy is still recovering. Not only this, but the vehicle can have inside more equipment the SWAT members can use, like throwing out smoke and flash bang grenades, or have riot shields as the exit. But this at least gets them inside and up where they can do good. If they tried to walk up to the door without cover, they would be easy pickings from small arms fire and snipers.
Good answer. I would add that presumably, the SWAT vehicle could be put in reverse, and once the front entrance was breached, it would back up. Also, this being a movie, it's shown that the overall police and F.B.I. response is supposed to be somewhat bungled, with different egotistical characters vying for control. Plot wise, it shows how well armed the "terrorists" are supposed to be by blowing up the SWAT vehicle with a missile, and how they anticipate and outsmart the police's every move. This is not reality.
3rd Aug 2019
Die Hard (1988)
Corrected entry: When John McClane fell down the ventilation shaft, that would have ended him. There is no way he could have caught and stopped himself like he did.
Correction: Why would that have "ended" him? I don't see any issue with the scene as shown that would lead to it being a mistake. Sure, the scene might require a slight bit of suspension of disbelief that he'd have the reflexes to catch the shaft as he fell and not break his fingers, but not enough that it'd constitute a mistake.
The problem is that Hollywood has people believing if you fall you can just grab onto something and live. Not true. The force exerted on your arms, even if it were possible to hang on, would rip them off your body. It has happened in real life to too many people. : (.
14th Apr 2005
Die Hard (1988)
Character mistake: An unloaded automatic pistol is much lighter and balanced differently than a loaded one. When McClane hands "Bill Clay" (Gruber) the empty pistol, a terrorist of Gruber's credentials should pick up on the odd balance (I notice that difference, and I very rarely even pick up a gun).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This presumes that a person can notice the difference between a fully-loaded pistol versus a pistol that is empty, which makes sense. However, it would be much more difficult for a person to tell that a gun is completely empty versus one that only has one or two bullets loaded. Since Gruber has no way of knowing his ruse didn't work, he doesn't believe McClane would have given him a completely empty gun. He obviously believes there is at the very least one bullet in the gun. He's not planning on getting into a shootout with McClane, he is just planning to threaten him and he certainly doesn't need a fully loaded gun to do that.
Suggested correction: It's easy to tell the different between the weight of a loaded vs. unloaded pistol, but given Hans had never held the pistol before, he had no way to compare the weight. Unless he regularly handled that particular model of pistol (unlikely, given his pistol is a completely different make and model) he would have no point of reference.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.