Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: Ash on February 14, 2007, 05:08:53 AM



Title: Die Hard Question
Post by: Ash on February 14, 2007, 05:08:53 AM
HBO showed Die Hard last night.
I hadn't seen that movie in at least two years.
No matter how many times I see it, it's always a good time.   :thumbup:

One question...
Remember the scene where McClane says, "Let's see you take this under advisement jerkweed!" and places that bag of C4 on a chair, sets a computer monitor on top of it, wraps the entire thing with a cord and shoves it down an elevator shaft?
He sets off an enormous explosion.

(http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4787/mcclanediehardrj3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Would that really work?
Could a load of C4 be set off that way?





Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Trevor on February 14, 2007, 06:22:44 AM
I think something must have been added and that there was more than just C4 in that bag. In some movies and books, a detonator is put into C4 and it does nothing more than go "pow" other than totally kablooiey.  :teddyr:

A great scene nonetheless.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Menard on February 14, 2007, 07:22:09 AM
Well, I will just scratch the surface of explosives since the main intent is to enjoy a very enjoyable movie.

HE, or High Explosives, are categorized into three basic types by use: primary; secondary; and booster. Chemically, and according to how the explosive is packed, it could be used as more than one type of explosive. A primary explosive is one that is very sensitive to shock, heat, etc., and is used to set off a less sensitive but more powerful secondary explosive. The most recognizable example of this is blasting caps used as a primary (initial explosion) inserted into a stick (or more) of dynamite or into a block of C-4. A booster explosive is just that; a more powerful initiating explosion set off by a primary, but itself used to set off a more powerful, but less sensitive, secondary explosive.

I bring up the booster explosive because, in the scene, John McClane could have used the monitor as a primary (the picture tube could have a minor explosion upon being dropped) and have packed something else with the C-4 as a booster to be set off by the explosion of the picture tube. Of course, we could just look at the picture tube as a trigger to set off the primer. If he had a pack of C-4, he most likely had blasting caps as well since he took it from terrorists and they would have had blasting caps with their C-4. The use of the monitor as a trigger was actually well thought out as a way to set off the explosives; to say there is a potential it would not work is definitely true, but McClane is a hero and it must work.

The scene and the movie work for me. :teddyr:

*As a note to rules lawyers: I am using the popular term C-4 as most people will refer to plastique as such. I know that the term semtex is more commonly associated with terrorist explosives, and we can get into ridiculous namings of RDX compositions, but, dangit, let's just enjoy the movie. :tongueout:


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Bill C. on February 14, 2007, 05:47:44 PM
Actually, in the scene we saw John actually inserting detonators (I think here we'd call them blasting caps) into the margarine-sized stick of plastic explosive before he stuck a CRT monitor on top of it and shoved it down the elevator shaft.  The scene opened with him sticking one cap into the explosive, then another, then "f**k it!" and a third cap.  (Yes, that was from memory.)

So, as Menard explained above, the apparent idea was for the monitor to somehow set off the caps and thus the explosive.  Damn shame about the chair...


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Menard on February 14, 2007, 06:02:08 PM
Damn shame about the chair...

Yes, it was a nice chair. :teddyr:

It has been a while since I have seen it, so I could not remember if it showed the blasting caps or not. Thank you for pointing that out.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: trekgeezer on February 14, 2007, 07:29:12 PM
They always have too much fire in explosions in the movies (mainly because they use gasoline to make them). You don't see this back in the 30's, they used real dynamite. The explosions were far more realistic back then .


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Ash on February 15, 2007, 08:30:54 PM
The scene opened with him sticking one cap into the explosive, then another, then "f**k it!" and a third cap. 

When I was watching it, I was sitting at my computer and only halfway paying attention to certain scenes.
I'd forgot about where he stuck the extra blasting caps into the C4.

So yes, I suppose that would make a really big explosion.   :hot:


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Jim H on February 21, 2007, 10:03:00 PM
I assumed the caps he stuck into it were set off by electricity.  Monitors, especially older ones, can hold VERY LARGE charges, and a massive drop would be enough to release it on impact.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Yaddo 42 on February 22, 2007, 06:21:54 AM
Two of the things I liked about the new Miami Vice movie was that explosions were more realistic, and the effects of bullets and how they pentrate cars was done much better than most films.

I went target shooting with some friends one time and we used some old computer parts as improvised targets. Lots of discharge from one of those old, big monitors when you first shoot one. So I can see using it to set off the caps and then set off the explosives.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Ash on February 22, 2007, 06:43:55 AM
So the computer monitor was the ignition device.  (what's a better word for "ignition"?)
Without it, the whole thing probably wouldn't have gone off.

That'd be a great idea for the guys on the Mythbusters TV show to try out!   :thumbup:
I just may e-mail them with that suggestion.
You never know...maybe they could try it out on a much smaller scale.

By the way, CHECK OUT THIS AWESOME VIDEO DEDICATED TO McCLANE & DIE HARD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5in09EwYV0)

HERE'S THE VIDEO OF THE DETONATION SCENE I WAS TALKING ABOUT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOOrY6Pvsv8)


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Viktorcrayon on February 22, 2007, 12:04:10 PM
People really know something about weapons on this board.  :buggedout:

*mental note not to p**s anyone off


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Menard on February 22, 2007, 12:17:19 PM
People really know something about weapons on this board.  :buggedout:

I've always maintained that it is not a good idea to let D&Ders play with matches. :hot:


*mental note not to p**s anyone off

All I have to do is post and I've accomplished p**sing someone off. Hell, I don't even have to post really; I lose karma whether I've posted or not.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Viktorcrayon on February 22, 2007, 12:38:36 PM
Hehe... But seriously... Everyone seems to know their weapons. I've never held a gun, and i think i've just SEEN one, 4 or less times.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Jim H on February 23, 2007, 10:18:23 PM
Hehe... But seriously... Everyone seems to know their weapons. I've never held a gun, and i think i've just SEEN one, 4 or less times.

Really?  Everytime I see a cop walking around, they're got a handgun on their belt...

Edit: I see you're in Denmark.  Beat cops don't carry there?  I know they don't in some countries in Europe...


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Andrew on February 23, 2007, 10:29:02 PM
People really know something about weapons on this board.  :buggedout:

*mental note not to p**s anyone off

For certain weapons - yes.  It is an integral part of what I do.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Menard on February 23, 2007, 11:17:24 PM
Hehe... But seriously... Everyone seems to know their weapons. I've never held a gun, and i think i've just SEEN one, 4 or less times.

I've only once had one pointed at me, and that was in sales of all situations. I mean, come on, can't they just say 'NO' without getting dramatic? :tongueout:


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Yaddo 42 on February 24, 2007, 06:46:49 AM
I've had a loaded gun pointed at me once, I was six and waiting in the parking lot at school for my aunt to pick me up. Two older tough kids who were usually friends were arguing. One said, "yeah I've got a gun!" and pulled a bolt action rifle out of the trunk, took aim and worked the bolt. The other guy yelled back, "Yeah, well, I've got a shield!" and picked me up and held me in front of him. My only thought for some reason was that the bullet could go through of me and hit the guy. They stared at each other for what seemed like a long time, but was probably only seconds. Let out a laugh and lowered the gun and me. If it was a prank, they never let on, and no one else seemed to notice.

My father hunted, and was big on teaching safe, responsible weapon handling to everyone in the family. He had had close calls himself and had friends seriously injured by careless and lazy gun handling.

I have an interest in firearms, and own a few, but I haven't fired a shot in three years.

Yet strangely, over the course of my life on several occasions people have made a habit of handing me loaded .45 cal. pistols a little too casually for my taste. They're not playthings.


Title: Re: Die Hard Question
Post by: Viktorcrayon on February 24, 2007, 08:37:20 AM
I think they carry, most of them, but it's not visible in any way. American cops look way cooler. They look like damn superheroes or something! All those gadgets.

I was in Italy once, and i saw this lazy ass douchebag cop, carrying a sub-machine gun. That was really overkill (He was guarding the vatican state).

But yeah, the site owner is a marine i noticed. Pretty cool.