My school paper on why Live Free or Die Hard should have been rated R

This past semester at Wake Tech Community College, I took an argumentative writing course. One of the papers we had to write was an historical argument, where you had to argue that a certain major event, such as dropping the bomb on Japan, should have happened, should not have happened, or should have happened differently.

I chose to write about the rating of Live Free or Die Hard and why it should have been rated R. I actually didn't get a very good grade on the paper, mostly due to errors in the MLA format and some present/past tense issues (though I did pass). Even so, I think it's a good paper and have decided to share it here, because let's be real, that shit should have been R.

-Sidenote- I just copied and pasted from my word document, and the transition made the format a little screwy, but whatever.

The Rating of Live Free or Die Hard

In June 2007, the film Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth entry in the popular action

franchise, was released and carried a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association of

America (MPAA) as opposed to the R rating all previous entries had earned. Twentieth Century

Fox, the film studio that produced the movie, made the rating switch in an attempt to broaden the

audience and hopefully earn a greater profit. However, with a softer rating came a softer movie,

thereby undercutting the meaning of the title itself. Instead of going for the easy dollar, the

studio should have put its trust in the Die Hard brand that was already well established and gone

with the R rating that audiences had come to expect from the franchise.

While the first three Die Hard films vary in terms of overall quality, one of the things

all three got right was the portrayal of main character John McClane as played by actor Bruce

Willis. In those films, McClane is an ordinary guy, or everyman, who was put in extraordinary

situations, and unlike other action heroes from the time, there was no special circumstance to

who he was as a character. His wife wasn’t killed in a car accident causing him to become

suicidal and labeled a lethal weapon by his reluctant, about to retire partner nor was he a

mercenary stuck in a Central-American jungle being hunted by a predator from another planet.

He was simply a New York police officer visiting his estranged wife in Los Angeles with the

hope of getting back together. That is, until terrorists take over the building and McClane is

forced to take them out one by one. No matter how far-fetched the situation might be, it was his

reactions to the situation that resonated with audiences. When he got hit, he fell. When he got

shot, he bled. When he got angry, he cursed. And because these things happened to McClane

quite often, those films were rated R. In Live Free or Die Hard though, when McClane gets hit,

he barely falls. When he gets shot, he barely bleeds. When he gets angry, he certainly doesn’t

curse. The PG-13 rating simply cannot allow any of these things to be very extreme, or as one

might say, hard. Why, then, risk a proven formula?

According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, a website that tracks how much money films make in

their domestic and worldwide theatrical run, Live Free or Die Hard had an opening weekend of

$33 million on its way to just over $134 million by the end of its domestic run, both of which

were higher than all previous entries in the franchise. Also, according to RottenTomatoes.com, a

website that averages the positive and negative reviews of the nation’s critics for any given

movie, Live Free or Die Hard received an 82% rating, second only to the original Die Hard

which received an impressive 94% rating. Obviously, with a new franchise high in terms of

gross not only domestic but also worldwide, plus a very warm critical reception, the PG-13

rating had done exactly what Twentieth Century Fox had wanted it to do, broaden the appeal

and maximize profit.

If one were to truly compare all four films financially though, one would have to take

into account inflation of ticket prices over the years. In 1988, when the original film was

released, it grossed $83 million domestically, or $158 million if adjusted for today’s ticket

prices, per BoxOfficeMojo.com. In 1990, when Die Hard 2 was released, it grossed $117 million

domestically, or $217 million if adjusted. Finally, in 1995 when Die Hard with a Vengeance

was released, it grossed $100 million, or $180 million if adjusted, meaning that Live Free or Die

Hard actually sold fewer tickets than any other film in the franchise. Could the studio have

scared off even the most die-hard Die Hard fans with the PG-13 rating? Film critic, author, and

self-proclaimed Die Hard enthusiast Vern, in his book “Yipee Ki-Yay Moviegoer”: Writings on

Bruce Willis, Badass Cinema and Other Important Topics says, “As long as there is a chance of a

dishonorable PG-13, please refer to this one as Die Soft, Die Limp, Die Weak, Die Feeble, Die

Fragile, Die Compromised, Die in a Puddle Of Your own Urine Afraid of Facing the

Consequences of Being a man, etc” (387). In early 2012, Live Free or Die Hard even ended up

being chosen as number eleven in the online article “ Movies Ruined By Not Being Rated R” on

the entertainment website UGO.com. The author of the list, Evan Saathoff, points out, “When a

franchise's most recognizable calling card is an expletive, it seems obvious that a PG-13 rating

would be off the table.” Even those fans who weren’t completely dissatisfied with the movie,

still found it hard to get past the rating. Vern, in his official review of the film on movie website

Ain’tItCoolNews.com admitted, “But I am relieved to be able to tell you that, despite

everything going against it, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is a pretty damn

entertaining movie. It could and should be harder.” Overall, it was the character

of McClane himself who fans felt had suffered the most with the softer rating.

With the more appealing and friendly action, the character was reduced to an

invincible superhero sliding down the side of a jet wing onto a collapsing bridge

rather than the everyman who was forced to walk across broken glass while

barefoot and actually suffer the consequences that the audience was first

introduced to in the original film.

Even with minor critical acclaim and impressive box office, which has actually

led to the making of a fifth entry due to be released in theaters February 2013, one

can’t help but wonder how much more success the film would have had with the

franchises’ much more traditional and fan pleasing R rating.