Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2018 18:29:35 GMT
I mean, at that point in the movie the terrorists had no idea that he was even in the building. He had the element of surprise on his side. As soon as he killed Karl's brother, he gives away that he's in the building and puts all the terorrists on alert. If he hadn't done that, they would have their guards down a little more and he could have killed them more easily (at least a couple more).  |
|
|
|
Post by Lilith on Oct 12, 2018 21:12:48 GMT
That's a good point, but maybe he thought by doing so it would distract them so they wouldn't hurt anyone in the building (considering his wife was in there), and that by forcing them to now look for someone else in the building who is willing to pick off members of the team, he's buying time for the police to arrive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joc Spader on Oct 13, 2018 2:25:51 GMT
I'm not 100% certain but I think the terrorists shut off access below the 30th floor. Now he could have still went down the stairs but who knows...
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 13, 2018 8:59:28 GMT
I'm not sure either but I think it has more to do with the screenwriter needing something to do on page 42 of the screenplay rather than what makes sense to the plot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 20:27:09 GMT
I'm not sure either but I think it has more to do with the screenwriter needing something to do on page 42 of the screenplay rather than what makes sense to the plot. Someone told me it was because he used the opportnity to learn more about the terrorists. When the lift goes down, he's on top of it listening and writing the names of the terrorist. It's an okay theory but McClane had no idea if they'd start talking like that. I still say he would have been better off keeping the element of surprise for as long as possible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 14:03:20 GMT
I'm not sure either but I think it has more to do with the screenwriter needing something to do on page 42 of the screenplay rather than what makes sense to the plot. Someone told me it was because he used the opportnity to learn more about the terrorists. When the lift goes down, he's on top of it listening and writing the names of the terrorist. It's an okay theory but McClane had no idea if they'd start talking like that. I still say he would have been better off keeping the element of surprise for as long as possible. In poker it is called tilt. A poker player will deliberately antagonize another player to put him on tilt and make him act with emotion and make mistakes. Plus it was a badass thing to do and John McClane is a badass. You wouldn't get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 14:36:07 GMT
Someone told me it was because he used the opportnity to learn more about the terrorists. When the lift goes down, he's on top of it listening and writing the names of the terrorist. It's an okay theory but McClane had no idea if they'd start talking like that. I still say he would have been better off keeping the element of surprise for as long as possible. In poker it is called tilt. A poker player will deliberately antagonize another player to put him on tilt and make him act with emotion and make mistakes. Plus it was a badass thing to do and John McClane is a badass. You wouldn't get it. In poker, if you can win without the other players even knowing you're in the room... this is better than putting them on tilt. You wouldn't get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 14:49:26 GMT
In poker it is called tilt. A poker player will deliberately antagonize another player to put him on tilt and make him act with emotion and make mistakes. Plus it was a badass thing to do and John McClane is a badass. You wouldn't get it. In poker, if you can win without the other players even knowing you're in the room... this is better than putting them on tilt. You wouldn't get it. Live poker. Not girlyman Internet poker. You wouldn't get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 14:52:39 GMT
In poker, if you can win without the other players even knowing you're in the room... this is better than putting them on tilt. You wouldn't get it. Live poker. Not girlyman Internet poker. You wouldn't get it. In ALL forms of poker, winning without the other players even knowing you're in the room... is better than ALL other tactics. You demonstrably don't get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 15:03:13 GMT
Live poker. Not girlyman Internet poker. You wouldn't get it. In ALL forms of poker, winning without the other players even knowing you're in the room... is better than ALL other tactics. You demonstrably don't get it. "In ALL forms of poker, winning without the other players even knowing you're in the room... is better than ALL other tactics." An element of truth in that statement. Not entirely correct. Certainly not "ALL". A good player tries to be invisible. A great player reads the table, studies his opponents and adjusts to changing circumstances. This includes putting a player on tilt it the opponent and the timing is right. You wouldn't get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 15:18:27 GMT
In ALL forms of poker, winning without the other players even knowing you're in the room... is better than ALL other tactics. You demonstrably don't get it. "In ALL forms of poker, winning without the other players even knowing you're in the room... is better than ALL other tactics." An element of truth in that statement. Not entirely correct. Certainly not "ALL". A good player tries to be invisible. A great player reads the table, studies his opponents and adjusts to changing circumstances. This includes putting a player on tilt it the opponent and the timing is right. You wouldn't get it. In ALL forms of life, winning without even having to take part in the game... is always better than ANY other method. You continue to not get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 16:18:46 GMT
"In ALL forms of poker, winning without the other players even knowing you're in the room... is better than ALL other tactics." An element of truth in that statement. Not entirely correct. Certainly not "ALL". A good player tries to be invisible. A great player reads the table, studies his opponents and adjusts to changing circumstances. This includes putting a player on tilt it the opponent and the timing is right. You wouldn't get it. In ALL forms of life, winning without even having to take part in the game... is always better than ANY other method. You continue to not get it. How can you win in poker unless you take part in the game? 9,775 threads and posts. Everybody knows you are on this board and participating. You wouldn't get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 16:32:58 GMT
In ALL forms of life, winning without even having to take part in the game... is always better than ANY other method. You continue to not get it. How can you win in poker unless you take part in the game? 9,775 threads and posts. Everybody knows you are on this board and participating. You wouldn't get it. Maybe you intend to steal all the money at the end. Far better than playing. The POINT is that McLane putting the terrorists on tilt is a shitty plan compared to having the element of surprise. Killing people on high alert compared to killing people who think they're alone and safe. Do the mathssssssss. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Dec 15, 2018 16:54:45 GMT
Room full of hot girls. Neither of you would get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 17:05:39 GMT
Room full of hot girls. Neither of you would get it. Chlamydia? |
|
