raywest

17th Feb 2023

Die Hard (1988)

Question: When Hans is interrogating Takagi, why would he remove a silencer to fire the weapon indoors without hearing protection? Wouldn't it be more menacing to put a silencer on in that situation?

Answer: I think he's just subtly showing Takagi that he's in control of the situation - there's no need to hide behind a silencer, which they were using earlier. They've taken over and can do whatever they want, including loudly executing people. It's a very subtle power-play.

TedStixon

Answer: They used guns with silencers to access the building and take control swiftly and quietly. Now that they no longer need to do that he takes off the silencer. A silencer affects the gun's accuracy. It is also highly likely he wanted the people in the other room to hear the shot.

lionhead

I had the same thought about Hans wanting the other hostages to hear the shot to instill fear and show how ruthless he truly was, like when Ellis was shot. I wasn't sure if Has and his accomplices were still on the same floor as the hostages when he killed Takagi.

raywest

Answer: Hans may be posturing to look less menacing. By removing the silencer and placing the gun on the table, he appears to be "disarming" himself, making Takagi feel less threatened and creating a false sense of security to relax him a little so he'd be more cooperative.

raywest

22nd Nov 2020

Die Hard (1988)

Question: Why would an exploding helicopter take so long to slide down the side of the building? Enough time for McClane to get down to the party area?

Answer: This is a movie, not reality. The doomed helicopter's descent was deliberately slowed down on film for a visually dramatic effect. It is also timed so it coordinates with McClane's movement and better serves the plot's pacing. It is also not necessarily linear, timewise, cutting back and forth at different points to show what is happening.

raywest

Sorry not adequate explanation. Hundreds of action movies are made regularly the world over they don't make these sorts of errors. Insufficient explanation.

There was no error. It was a deliberate artistic choice by the filmmakers to achieve a desired visual and dramatic effect, regardless of real-life physics.

raywest

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?

Jon Sandys

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.

Quantom X

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.

Ssiscool

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.

Quantom X

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.

raywest

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.