1. A Good Day to Die Hard
Case Study

2. Die Hard
• US: $83,008,852
• Uk :$5,244,935
• Distributor: Fox
• Release Date: July 15, 1988
• Rating : 18
• Production Budget: $28 million

3. Die Hard 2: Die Harder
• US Total Gross: $117,540,947
• UK: $11,087,479
• Distributor: Fox
• Release Date: July 6, 1990
• Production Budget: $70 million

4. Die Hard with a Vengeance
• US Total Gross: $100,012,499
• UK:$18,999,473
• Distributor: Fox
• Release Date:May 19, 1995
• Production Budget: $90 million

5. Die Hard 4.0 (Live Free or Die Hard)
• US Total Gross:$134,529,403
• UK:£28,100,927
Opening weekend UK : £10,062,155
• Distributor: Fox
• Release Date: June 27,
• Production Budget: $110 million

6. A Good Day to Die Hard
• US Total as of Apr. 11, 2013: $66,855,622
• UK : $16,552,886
• Uk opening Weekend : $7,142,066
• Shown UK in 491 cinemas
• Distributor: Fox
• Release Date: February 14, 2013
• Rating: 12A
• Production Budget: $92 million

7. Box Office Analysis
• Due to the time scale between the different Die Hard films it is difficult to compare
the box office figures from all of them as it does not take into account levels of
inflation. However, we can clearly see that in the US the newest instalment of the
die hard franchise made substantially less than each of the other films. The biggest
variance being around $50 Million.
• The differences between this newest film and its previous can be shown through
the differences in Box office figures between this one and Die Hard 4.0, as in the
US and the UK that was the most successful film out of the franchise in terms of
box office figures (without taking into account budget *next slide*) whereas the
newest release has made over £12 million less in the UK compared to this. This is
even more clear in the US box office as Die Hard 4.0 made over double the amount
that A Good Day To Die Hard has managed to rake in.
• I was surprised to discover the original Die Hard only took around £5 million in the
UK box office, whereas the newest managed to make over triple that. Yet in the US
it took over $20 million more. This begins to show the effect stars can have on Box
Office, as other than Moonlighing, Die Hard was the first major hit for Bruce Willis,
and to those who hadn’t watched him in Moonlighting at the time (which was
much bigger in the US) they were not aware who he was. Whereas nowadays
Willis has acclaimed a fan base for his role in the Die Hard franchise as well as
many other large successes.

8. Budget Analysis
• The first Die Hard was produced with a rather small budget (compared to
the rest) of $28 million, this is most likely due to the lack of locations used
within the film due to it all being set in one place, unlike the newer
films, as well as 20th Century Fox not being able to get the funding to
produce a large scale action/thriller without guarantee of its success.
• The newer instalments used a much higher budget (largest = $110 mil)
with A Good Day To Die Hard having a budget of $92 million. This could
mainly be down to inflation as there is 25 years apart between these film.
Yet overall, in relation to the cost of the film and its return, the original Die
Hard did much better in terms of Profit as so little was spent on its
production yet it was a huge success.
• Stars may have been a factor in the rising budgets of the newer films, as
the first 2 films contained a limited number of stars at the time, although
Willis and Alan Rickman have gone onto earning much more, im sure they
were paid only snippits for being in this film as they would take nowadays.
• I personally think with the larger production budget on the newest
film, the director, John Moore, went a little bit over the top with CGI and
special effects because they could afford it.

9. Release Date Analysis
• Each of the other Die Hard films were released in the summer
cinema season. Which brings up the question as to why this film
was released on valentines day?
• The main reason I can find as to why this film was released on
valentines day, rather than as a summer blockbuster is that, that
weekend in America was in fact Presidents weekend, a large
American holiday meaning that there would be a multiple number
of people wanting to go out and spend time at the cinema as they
would have the time off work.
• Another reason could be that its distributors (20th century fox)
thought there would be too much competition for ticket sales had
this film been released in the summer, with the likes of releases
such as World War Z, The Wolverine and 300: Rise of an Empire to
be around the same time. Releasing this film in the middle of Feb
allowed many audiences to make a simple choice as there was not
that many films released around the same time that were so
similar.

10. Age Rating Analysis
• The first two Die Hard’s had an age rating of 18 in the UK, the next
two were 15’s and the newest instalment is in fact a 12A.
• This shows that age ratings can have huge impacts on a film as in
allows audiences an incite as to how bloody/violent/sexually
provocative a film is going to be, as well as limiting some fans to
watching it. This is because if a film is rated 18, a selection of the
largest ages of movie goers (15-25) are not able to see the film,
meaning that a large target audience will be lost. Whereas if a film
is rated 15, audiences know there will be a select amount of adult
themes, not putting them off, but also allowing target audiences to
see the film.
• A 12A rating however, can turn a multiple number of people off,
especially fans of the original film because they want to be allowed
to see the violence yet if the film is a 12A it means it will most
probably be very restricted.

11. Title Analysis
• If asked a question based on titles of films and how
they can effect audiences. Discuss the fourth
instalment (Die Hard 4.0) as within North America it
was titled Live Free or Die Hard in order to appeal to
them as it was adapted from the New Hampshire state
motto (Live Free or Die) the distribution company knew
that if they were to release the film with this title
outside of North America then the play on words
would have gone unnoticed and unappreciated and so
they changed it.
*Also discuss John Carter*