Nothing Last Forever: Comparing the book to the movie Die Hard 1

The book Nothing Last Forever was written by Roderick Thorp and it was given good reviews by critics as  a follow up the novel The Detective, and after a while the 80's action movie was getting popular. Well the reason I put emphasis on that is that the writer of the movie intended this to be a sequel to the movie Commando but the star Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't interested in the project so it was rewritten to be more like the book and to be an original film. They change the main characters name from Joe Leland to John Mclane, and the villains are now robbers instead of terrorist as to make them less darker. They also change the name of the company from Klaxon to Nakatomi and it is a more straight forward action movie were as the book is more of a thriller and also a lot of the details and the time period are changed to match the time. The two are relatively close with almost all the action sequences staying the same, and a lot of the terrorist die in the same way in each and a few are extended upon in the movie. The big difference besides his name in the main protagonist is that Joe is a world war 2 veteran and John is a young cop who is more loose cannon and it also forgets the movie they the made the Detective into but they are connected technically so they are as of writing 6 Die Hard movies but most people forget the Detective.

Also the movie is a little more comedic as John Mclane cracks jokes at the antagonist throughout all the story but in the book it is a lot more serious as the stakes are higher because Joe can't do all the acrobatics that John does so it makes it more tense in a gun fight were Joe does get and isn't invincible as John is portrayed as. Also they are both rescuing different people were John rescues his wife and Joe is rescuing his Daughter so they change that aspect of the book, and to close I think the book is a little more realistic but there are still some goofy moments for a 56 year old to be doing and in the movie it does make more sense to make him younger because Frank Sinatra played him in the Detective and when they were casting this movie he was about 90 so he couldn't do the part but it said in the contract for the Detective that he had to be offered the sequel if it ever got made so I think it is smart to make him younger so I do think the changes they made were very necessary     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vs.