Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In the Nakatomi Plaza of "Die Hard," all innocent citizens have been evacuated. The electricity is out, but there are police spotlights sweeping the building. This means no elevators, no televisions on which to see the news... etc.

John Preston has been assigned to "retire" Hans Gruber, the terrorist, as his greed and wrath have made him a Sense Offender.

John McClane is in the building to reconcile with his wife, but when the crisis starts, begins to hunt down Hans Gruber in order to keep him from blowing up the building.

Both are willing to go to the death to capture Gruber. Both are willing to kill the other in order to get to Gruber first.

In the Plaza, there are a few more minor terrorists, but most of them have fled. Gruber is in one room, but it is not known where. He will stay in this room until he is captured.

John Preston is armed with his two guns, and can perform gun kata. He also has lots of extra ammo. He has not yet started to skip his emotion-suppressing pills. Preston starts with no idea as to where Gruber might be.

Please use this scene as a reference to John Preston's abilities.

http://youtu.be/dGhF-j1lbzo

John McClane has his NYCPD-issued gun, and he discovers C4 and more ammo as he moves through the building. He also recovers a two-way radio from a dead guard, and so is able to learn a very little about the schematics of the building, but the terrorists speak German, and McClane doesn't know the language. He has the abilities to improvise, but Lady Luck does not shine on him nearly as often as she does in the film.


[I'm looking of a clip of the part where McClane is barefoot, walking on shattered glass, and still manages to do some damage.. any of you McClane-ians know which I'm talking of? Please PM me.


Who gets to Hans Gruber first?

Preston

John Preston finds Gruber with his ultra-hearing abilities (note the scene where he could pin-point every single EC-10 offender in the room when the lights were out).


John Preston also makes short work of McClane, bare-handed, if he runs across John McClane at any point during his ascension to Gruby.


In short, John McClane is made a punk b**** in this scenario, 10 out of 10 times, without fail or mistake from Preston.

Would this change if Preston had started skipping his pills, do you think?

Does McClane have any chance - what would I need to give him to give him a possible win?
I'm just trying to make a semi-even thread.

H2H McClane's assets of durability and luck might be his only two chances against Preston. I recall Preston being really good.

Good thread idea.

Lemme rewatch the movie before I come in with a solid opinion.

This thread is based on a false premise that Preston would harm McClane to begin with.

Little known fact, McClane was the promordial Grammaton Cleric; Gunkata was spawned from him; his many gun battles were the earliest data used in the calculations. Though it was twisted by evil men in the future as a means to enforce totalitarianism, instead of defeating would-be thieves and terrorist.

So in a sense, Preston is McClane perfected at the end of Equilibrium, an unstoppable force for justice.

Good point.

I hadn't considered that.

Even though McClane may have been a pioneer in the art of Gunkata.

Preston is a learned and heavily experienced practitioner of the art fully realised in a future society.

Preston takes this most likely.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Even though McClane may have been a pioneer in the art of Gunkata.

Preston is a learned and heavily experienced practitioner of the art fully realised in a future society.

Preston takes this most likely.

Preston does likely take this and McClane like a proud teacher looks on in admiration.

There's no bigger compliment to a teacher than to be surpassed by your student.

Very true.

Originally posted by Robtard
Preston does likely take this and McClane like a proud teacher looks on in admiration.

There's no bigger compliment to a teacher than to be surpassed by your student.

Like Ali/Larry Holmes

Similarly Preston wouldl always live in McClane's shadow.

doesn't Preston guest star in Die Hard 5??

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Would this change if Preston had started skipping his pills, do you think?

No, Preston become even more of a badass after stopping his pills.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Does McClane have any chance - what would I need to give him to give him a possible win?
I'm just trying to make a semi-even thread.

In order for McClane to win, you'd need about 20 McClanes, armed to the teeth, to win. Not kidding. We know because Preston took on about 20 of the Cleric's best soliders (the ones guarding the "Father" who were armed will fully automatic assault rifles and what appeared to be body armor...and Preston took them all on without even as much as a bullet graze.




Originally posted by Robtard
This thread is based on a false premise that Preston would harm McClane to begin with.

Little known fact, McClane was the promordial Grammaton Cleric; Gunkata was spawned from him; his many gun battles were the earliest data used in the calculations. Though it was twisted by evil men in the future as a means to enforce totalitarianism, instead of defeating would-be thieves and terrorist.

So in a sense, Preston is McClane perfected at the end of Equilibrium, an unstoppable force for justice.



WTF?


I did not think that "this" was possible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, Preston become even more of a badass after stopping his pills.


Yes and no. He became a bigger bad-ass when he learned how to remove all emotion by will alone. So it depends if this is Preston pill-less and out of control Preston or pill-less and SSJ10 Preston.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes and no. He became a bigger bad-ass when he learned how to remove all emotion by will alone. So it depends if this is Preston pill-less and out of control Preston or pill-less and SSJ10 Preston.

No, that's not what happened.


He became a bigger badass BECAUSE his emotions (rage and anger) facilitated his will to win. He could barely control his emotions when he LET them capture him and submit him to that futuristic polygraph test.

It was after that that he utterly and completely wtf raappped the Clergy.

The clergy were douches.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The clergy were douches.

My brain hurts, now, because I just thought about your use of the word "were":

Equilibrium occurs in the future, making "will be stupid" correct and "were" wrong.

However, the movie came out in 2000-2001, making were correct.

However, Equilibrium is a potential future/alternate reality still making "were" incorrect if used that way.

The clergy "were" killed in the timeline of the film, making "were" correct.

However, the clergy "will be" killed in that potential future, as well, making "were" incorrect.





These are the irritating problems that I encounter, from time to time: no proper solutions without proper context.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's not what happened.


He became a bigger badass BECAUSE his emotions (rage and anger) facilitated his will to win. He could barely control his emotions when he LET them capture him and submit him to that futuristic polygraph test.

It was after that that he utterly and completely wtf raappped the Clergy.

Um, no. He was weak after he stopped since he was barraged by emotions he's never felt before, I think we can both agree on this.

While initially on the polygraph, he was more of an emotional wreck as more time had pasted since he stopped using.

Then suddenly *blam*, he shuts off all emotion by will alone (hence the straight lines on the polygraph) and becomes an uber-uber killing machine.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My brain hurts, now, because I just thought about your use of the word "were":

Equilibrium occurs in the future, making "will be stupid" correct and "were" wrong.

However, the movie came out in 2000-2001, making were correct.

However, Equilibrium is a potential future/alternate reality still making "were" incorrect if used that way.

The clergy "were" killed in the timeline of the film, making "were" correct.

However, the clergy "will be" killed in that potential future, as well, making "were" incorrect.





These are the irritating problems that I encounter, from time to time: no proper solutions without proper context.

All that brain hurt because you didn't deduce immediately that I simply referred to my watching of it in past tense, basically, then.

Speaking of improper context:

'Will be' would be incorrect in terms of a potential future.
'Could be/would be/may be/might be' would be more accurately useable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My brain hurts, now, because I just thought about your use of the word "were":

Equilibrium occurs in the future, making "will be stupid" correct and "were" wrong.

However, the movie came out in 2000-2001, making were correct.

However, Equilibrium is a potential future/alternate reality still making "were" incorrect if used that way.

The clergy "were" killed in the timeline of the film, making "were" correct.

However, the clergy "will be" killed in that potential future, as well, making "were" incorrect.





These are the irritating problems that I encounter, from time to time: no proper solutions without proper context.


Sadako used 'were' because he watched the movie in the past. So when he was referring to them he was talking about his own past experience watching them in the movie in which they were stupid.

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, no. He was weak after he stopped since he was barraged by emotions he's never felt before, I think we can both agree on this.


That's apples to oranges because we were talking about his physical...ness.


weak, emotionally?

Still, that's a no.

Weak physically?

His rage made him more powerful.

Weak in will?

No, he had stronger conviction than ever.


So, no, we don't even agree, there.

Originally posted by Robtard
While initially on the polygraph, he was more of an emotional wreck as more time had pasted since he stopped using.

Then suddenly *blam*, he shuts off all emotion by will alone (hence the straight lines on the polygraph) and becomes an uber-uber killing machine.


1. It was a trick he did to make them distracted (this is actually true..whether intentional unintentional). Since he was no longer taking the medication, that was sheer will power...so we partially agree on this point.

2. He was still slightly conflicted over his intentions and then finally became convinced. He displayed several moments of rage, afterwards, making your "flat-lined" emotions, wrong.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
All that brain hurt because you didn't deduce immediately that I simply referred to my watching of it in past tense, basically, then.

Speaking of improper context:

'Will be' would be incorrect in terms of a potential future.
'Could be/would be/may be/might be' would be more accurately useable.








































"Will be" applies to a potential future, as well. Unless you are going to say that the English language has built in prognostication constructs? "Will be" refers to what a person thinks is a sure future, not a literally sure future. Meaning, it's a reference to a potential future state...not a literal future state: the language construct gets its meaning from the perceptions of a future state, by the speaker/writer.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Sadako used 'were' because he watched the movie in the past. So when he was referring to them he was talking about his own past experience watching them in the movie in which they were stupid.


Unless, of course, you consider that it also applies to Preston's toppling of the Clergy by killing most of the "capital" clergy and the Father.

Then his reference makes even more sense in the context of the film (not a literal timeline in this world). Once you come to that realization, then many more possiblities open up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unless, of course, you consider that it also applies to Preston's toppling of the Clergy by killing most of the "capital" clergy and the Father.

Then his reference makes even more sense in the context of the film (not a literal timeline in this world). Once you come to that realization, then many more possiblities open up.

Except.... he said he was refering to it as his watching of it in past tense.


Also you're acting like a pretentous loser.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Will be" applies to a potential future, as well. Unless you are going to say that the English language has built in prognostication constructs? "Will be" refers to what a person thinks is a sure future, not a literally sure future. Meaning, it's a reference to a potential future state...not a literal future state: the language construct gets its meaning from the perceptions of a future state, by the speaker/writer.



'Will be' is too assertive for a situation that might not happen.

If I were to say: "I will be giving you a million dollars next week"
its a different thing entirely from saying: "I might be giving you a million dollars next week" or "I may give you a million dollars next week" etc etc

For "Might be" or "May be" includes the possibility of NOT giving you the millions dollars, hence the useage when talking in terms of potential.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
'Will be' is too assertive for a situation that might not happen.

I accounted for and explained that in the post you quoted.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
If I were to say: "I will be giving you a million dollars next week"
its a different thing entirely from saying: "I might be giving you a million dollars next week" or "I may give you a million dollars next week" etc etc

For "Might be" or "May be" includes the possibility of NOT giving you the millions dollars.

And to a person that is trying to be absolutely correct, that would be the most correct phrasing: the future is uncertain.*

Also, I am hungry for some donuts. I am going to get some, now. BRB (not kidding.)


*In other words, even when I'm wrong, I'm still right, because I can always invoke a higher plane of thought just to make myself right.

Yes Im glad you said that.. we all hate it when people kid us about their going to get donuts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*In other words, even when I'm wrong, I'm still right, because I can always invoke a higher plane of thought just to make myself right.

Actually, its: 'higher plain of thought'. (J/K)

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yes Im glad you said that.. we all hate it when people kid us about their going to get donuts.

It's the internet: everyone jokes.

Especially me.



Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Actually, its: 'higher plain of thought'. (J/K)


I see what you did there.

Just pretend that McClane and Preston are contemporaries [and thus we can skip the brain churning that occurs when people think about time travel seriously."

And I really like the idea of "The Teacher and the Student."

Just a reminder that everything Preston does is from "pounding the idea in your head" training, he's not able to improvise because he's not yet a Sense Offender. The only way Preston wanting/needing to kill McClane is if McClane finds Gruber first, and Preston knows that if a Sense Offender MAJOR finds Gruber first, that will not look good in his file.

McClane gets luck, improvisation, and all the benefits therein.

Hope that's all clear.

Crystal..

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's apples to oranges because we were talking about his physical...ness.

weak, emotionally?

Still, that's a no.

Weak physically?

His rage made him more powerful.

Weak in will?

No, he had stronger conviction than ever.


So, no, we don't even agree, there.

1. It was a trick he did to make them distracted (this is actually true..whether intentional unintentional). Since he was no longer taking the medication, that was sheer will power...so we partially agree on this point.

2. He was still slightly conflicted over his intentions and then finally became convinced. He displayed several moments of rage, afterwards, making your "flat-lined" emotions, wrong.

Considering he got his ass kicked by Taye Diggs during practice because his new emotions put him off kilter, he definitely was weak(er) than before he stopped using.

The flatline was to illustrate that he lost all emotion and became the efficient killing machine again; this time by will alone.

So you're just being the difficult DDM, no worries.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
In the Nakatomi Plaza of "Die Hard," all innocent citizens have been evacuated. The electricity is out, but there are police spotlights sweeping the building. This means no elevators, no televisions on which to see the news... etc.

John Preston has been assigned to "retire" Hans Gruber, the terrorist, as his greed and wrath have made him a Sense Offender.

John McClane is in the building to reconcile with his wife, but when the crisis starts, begins to hunt down Hans Gruber in order to keep him from blowing up the building.

Both are willing to go to the death to capture Gruber. Both are willing to kill the other in order to get to Gruber first.

In the Plaza, there are a few more minor terrorists, but most of them have fled. Gruber is in one room, but it is not known where. He will stay in this room until he is captured.

John Preston is armed with his two guns, and can perform gun kata. He also has lots of extra ammo. He has not yet started to skip his emotion-suppressing pills. Preston starts with no idea as to where Gruber might be.

Please use this scene as a reference to John Preston's abilities.

http://youtu.be/dGhF-j1lbzo

John McClane has his NYCPD-issued gun, and he discovers C4 and more ammo as he moves through the building. He also recovers a two-way radio from a dead guard, and so is able to learn a very little about the schematics of the building, but the terrorists speak German, and McClane doesn't know the language. He has the abilities to improvise, but Lady Luck does not shine on him nearly as often as she does in the film.




I think McClane's more likely to miss Gruber actually if he stays to going around the vent system and elevator shafts, it would be too slow and time consuming so he would have to be lot more open in moving around the building. If there are some terrorists running around then they could be made to talk, they weren't all foreign guys, and some clearly spoke English.

If though if he blunders into Preston and tries to get in a gun fight with him his chances are non-existant. But Preston couldn't dodge McClane's self-exploding C4 if it came to a trap, Mac is certainly devious enough to do that and would be motivated enough, seeing as he has a lot more riding on this scenario. If he uses the explosives, Preston can be fooled because at the start of Equilibrium when he launches himself through the door, he clearly doesn't consider that the door might be wired to blow up upon entry. God, that would have been hilarious

But in order to bait the explosive trap he'd have to show himself and I figure Preston would take him out, with his accuracy. So I'll go with Preston here.

McClane coulda shot Gruber from above the elevator at the beginning.

The OP has Gruber in an unknown location when the scenario starts.

Tsk, Tsk Sadako.

Ah yes. So it does. Fairplay...

Preston shoots his way through every mercernary while McClane takes his time dealing with each one individually.

Preston has the speed advantage and would make his way to the hostage point. Where Gruber situated himself as base HQ.

Where he WILL kill Gruber and win the objective.

I love it when people pay attention to the OP.

*smiles*

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering he got his ass kicked by Taye Diggs during practice because his new emotions put him off kilter, he definitely was weak(er) than before he stopped using.

You mean the day he decided not to take his drugs, right?

Yeah...it would take a while for it to clean out his system.


You also proved my point.

Why did you just prove my point?


Because it shows that the longer he wasn't on his meds, the more badass he became because his rage fueled his abilities.

Originally posted by Robtard
The flatline was to illustrate that he lost all emotion and became the efficient killing machine again; this time by will alone.

No, it was to illustrate his resolve because he hadn't quite decided yet on his path.


What I said.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're just being the difficult DDM, no worries.


No, it's another classic case of "Robtard will never admit fault about anything ever....ever......ever."